Sitting of 6 March 2003

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

    Drax Power Station
    Mr. Eric Illsley: What proposals she has received regarding the changes in emission limits at Drax power station. [101110]
    The Minister for the Environment(Mr. Michael Meacher): AES Drax Power Ltd. has applied to the Environment Agency for a variation to its existing integrated pollution control authorisation for its power station at Selby. Drax has applied to increase its SO2 emission limit from 47,000 tonnes to 60,000 tonnes per annum.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response. He knows that the AES Drax power station in Yorkshire is one of the most efficient in western Europe, mainly because it is fitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment. As a consequence, the cost to the power station is £30 million per annum greater than it would have been had that kit not been fitted. Given the lower level of electricity prices, Drax is bidding in its electricity at a price that it needs to maintain its company, but that means that power stations that do not have FGD fitted can come above it in the merit order. In other words, we are producing electricity from our dirty power stations, not the clean ones, because of the situation at Drax. Will my right hon. Friend investigate that to see whether he can alleviate the problem?
    Mr. Meacher: I am aware of that problem. It is perverse that there has been an increase in coal burn at installations without flue gas desulphurisation and a decrease at installations with it. That is certainly the case with Drax. The Environment Agency decided to revise its IPC authorisation so that power station operators have to present BATNEEC—best available technique not entailing excessive cost—justification for not using FGD. If BATNEEC cannot be demonstrated, they will
    940
    be authorised to operate at a load factor not exceeding 40 per cent. That change of policy by the Environment Agency should assist stations such as Drax.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, close to Drax, also in the constituency of Selby, an experimental project was undertaken to create biofuels? That would not have breached any emission limits, but, regrettably, it closed. The project took willows from farms, including many in the Vale of York. Will he revisit that idea and perhaps consider Government support for such projects to enable that crop to be continued, bearing it in mind that it is a more environmentally friendly way of producing fuels?
    Mr. Meacher: I am glad to tell the hon. Lady that I did revisit the project. I went to Willowby—I mean Wetherby; the confusion in my mind is that I went there to look at willows. On a farm near Wetherby, I saw short-rotation coppice and miscanthus. I am concerned about what happened with the—ARBRE—arable biomass renewable energy—project. The management decided not to continue it, but at least 40 farmers had, in good faith, sown biomass crops for use at the power station. We are extremely anxious to find an alternative buyer. That has not happened, but there are real prospects. I have discussed at length ways to keep the project going with the two largest farmers, one of whom struck me as extremely innovative and determined.
    Mr. John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend see an advantage in the Environment Agency developing an overall policy for emissions for all coal-fired power stations, including Drax, which is clearly the cleanest, rather than just assessing individual applications to increase sulphur dioxide emissions, as at Drax, or to burn pet coke, before it decides how to apply the large combustion plant directive and the national air quality strategy to such stations?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right. The Department has a strategy under the second sulphur protocol to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 80 per cent. by 2010 compared with a 1980 baseline. We are on track to do that and achieved a 76 per cent. reduction by 2000. However, under the national emission ceiling directive, which is related to the large combustion plant directive, we have agreed to lower the SO2 ceiling further to 585,000 tonnes, and we intend to adhere to that. So it is a combination of an overall policy of environmentally sensitive reductions in those emissions with a case-by-case analysis. That is the right policy.

    Illegal Food Imports
    Sandra Gidley: If she will make a statement on control of illegal food imports. [101111]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Margaret Beckett): Significant progress has been made against the Government's action plan, published in March 2002. We have increased the level of inspections and seizures, provided better powers for enforcement officers, increased public awareness and taken decisions about future responsibilities for

    941
    detection and deterrence. However, we are not complacent and we recognise that there is still more to do, so we are preparing a revised and updated action plan for 2003–04. We are also working to finalise the arrangements for Customs and Excise to take overall responsibility for anti-smuggling measures.
    Sandra Gidley: Does the Secretary of State agree that little attention has been paid to the vast majority of seaports and airports, with attention concentrated on the main two? What additional resources will be available to local authorities that have seaports and airports to assist them in detecting illegal meat imports? When will she publish the risk assessment prepared by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Lady is not quite correct. There has been a larger increase in staff at the major airports, as is to be expected, since that is where the major amount of trade is, but there has also been an increase in staff at major seaports, for example. Local authorities already have duties and it is up o them to carry them out. With regard to the risk assessment, I cannot add to what we said on a previous occasion. As she knows, that is out for peer review. We hope to publish it in the not-too-distant future, and I am sure that the House will find it fascinating reading.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend will know that I chair the bush meat campaign, which is arranging trials of X-ray equipment for her Department to show how it can be used to detect meat in passenger luggage. While we await the results of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency analysis of the potential disease risks to animals from illegal meat imports, will she ask the Food Standards Agency to explain why it has failed to conduct an analysis of the disease risk to human health from the illegal trade in bush meat and other illegal meat imports into the UK? It seems strange to the public that something that is considered a risk to animals is not deemed to be a threat to humans that warrants investigation.
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend asks two questions. As he knows, although it is important that we deal with the issue of illegal imports in general, including illegal imports of bush meat, only about 2.5 per cent. of reported seizures of products of animal origin are of bush meat. It can be a serious problem, particularly if it comes from endangered species, which is not always the case. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he and others are undertaking and look forward to receiving the results of that work. There is not much more that I can add. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the FSA, but as he knows, it is an independent agency with its own responsibilities. In so far as it reports to Government, it reports to the Department of Health.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: Is the Secretary of State aware of the 17 farms in Holland where there has been an outbreak of avian influenza? That is a notifiable disease for which there is no vaccine, and it is between 85 and 100 per cent. fatal. What steps is she taking to prevent the disease coming to Britain? It started in Italy and moved through Germany to Holland. Will she stop
    942
    imports now? Will she be proactive to prevent another outbreak similar to foot and mouth? Will she ensure that there is proper compensation if her efforts to stop the disease fail?
    Margaret Beckett: That was about six questions. Yes, I am aware of the outbreak and we take it very seriously. The chief veterinary officer reported to me only yesterday that we are monitoring what is happening, issuing the relevant warnings and so on. The hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot simply close our borders under single market rules, but we are monitoring the situation carefully.
    Mr. Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many believe that the action taken in other countries is far stricter than our system, but many people forget the amount of smuggling that takes place in those countries. Does she agree that the best way forward would be a single enforcement agency, so that everyone would know who was tackling the problem?
    Margaret Beckett: As I hope my hon. Friend will be aware, we do not by any means rule that out in the slightly longer term. He is right that there is sometimes an illusion about how much more is done in other countries, especially with regard to the amount of trade and traffic. We have substantially increased activity in this country. For example, in January, at Gatwick alone, almost 3,000 people arriving from outside the European Union were either questioned about or searched for illegal food products. As he knows, it takes time to set up separate agencies, agree remits and so on. It was agreed that, because of the urgent need to take more action, it was better to identify which single agency should have overall responsibility at present. That is why Customs and Excise will take responsibility from April, but we shall continue to monitor the situation and, if it seems better to set up a separate new agency later, we shall certainly give the matter careful consideration.
    Andrew George: Does the Secretary of State understand that farmers are being asked to make Herculean efforts to ensure the biosecurity of their own holdings but very few have confidence in the biosecurity of this country? How confident is she in the effectiveness of her Government's policies, especially in respect of illegal meat exports from countries that are known to be the primary source of the problem, and in intelligence about the market for illegal meat in this country, which should surely provide the benchmark against which she and her Department can measure the success of her policies?
    Margaret Beckett: In particular, I accept the hon. Gentleman's last point about the markets in this country and how one should identify and track them down. I assure him that when we had our first stakeholders' discussion on this matter, a very considerable effort was made to encourage those who might have knowledge and awareness of where the demand is coming from and how such meat is marketed to come forward. I fear that that was done without very much result, so if any

    943
    Member of the House has any contacts that might help to add to the intelligence, which is, frankly, pretty lacking at present, that would be very beneficial.
    Of course, I do not think that anyone would ever pretend, no matter what we do, that we can be 100 per cent. confident of keeping out all illegal imports. That is impossible. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman's farming constituents is that I accept, of course, that there are onerous responsibilities on them, as there are on the Government, and we are doing our utmost to discharge our responsibilities, but such matters can never all be the responsibility of the farmer without the Government needing to do anything. The Government need to do what they can to tackle the problem of illegal importation, but equally, it cannot be solely their responsibility. The issue is a very important link in the chain. It is one thing when a disease source comes into the country, but quite another when it spreads, particularly as it did in the last outbreak.
    Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the issue of food imports is not distinct from that of the animal by-products order, which takes effect on 1 May this year and relates in particular to the composting of animal materials. She is aware that there is something of an impasse between the Government and farmers organisations, renderers and others in the food chain. Is that impasse likely to be broken before 1 May, otherwise, there could be some difficulties about what happens to such products?
    Margaret Beckett: I accept that discussions are continuing, but I have just quickly cross-checked with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and I do not think that any of us is under the impression that we have reached an impasse and that there is no way forward. There are difficulties and concerns, as is frequently the case, but we are certainly continuing with those talks and we hope that they will be successfully resolved.
    Mr. David Lidington: May I press the right hon. Lady further on the Veterinary Laboratories Agency's risk assessment? That key part of the Government's strategy has now been delayed for many months beyond its expected publication date. Indeed, in a report dated November last year, the Department's own website shows that the report was expected to be completed by the end of 2002. Can she explain the reasons for that prolonged and repeated delay in completing this essential report? Does not all this bear out the comment of the president of the Royal Society that the one thing lacking from the Government's action plan was any action?
    Margaret Beckett: No, it does not, but I accept that there is some justice in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about our having had to wait an unduly long time for the risk assessment to be made available and published. What hon. Members should take on board—they will do so when the assessment is published—is that, as people will see, the assessment is an enormously complex task and a ground-breaking piece of work. It is not something that people have tried to do before. There are two reasons why the assessment has not yet been published: quality assurance and peer review. As I said,
    944
    it is a first to try to do this. When we publish it in full, everybody will be able to see the process, methods, data and results, and will probably have a good idea of why it took so long.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I need the co-operation of the House. We are still on Question 2 and we are 20 minutes into Question Time. We need brief questions and briefer answers.

    Waste Incineration
    Bob Russell: If she will make it her policy to prevent local authorities from transferring waste for incineration to other local authority areas that have waste plans opposed to incineration. [101112]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): To be brief, no. I should add that decisions on the transfer of waste and its incineration are for local authorities to take within the framework provided by national policy as set out in "Waste Strategy 2000" and the guidance on municipal waste management strategies.
    Bob Russell: Presumably, the Government feel that incineration is a safe method of getting rid of waste. Does the Minister agree that local councils that wish to have their waste incinerated should have incinerators in their own backyard, not carry the waste 40, 50 or 60 miles to local authorities with proper recycling facilities and collections? Colchester is a visionary council that is threatened with two incinerators. Surely the best way to ensure that no councils incinerate is to say that a council that wishes to do so must have the incinerator locally, not carry the waste 40, 50 or 60 miles.
    Mr. Meacher: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been involved in the issue locally and has taken his concerns a considerable way, including to court. The original draft of the Essex waste plan included proposals for incinerators around the county, but after extensive public protests, consultants were appointed to carry out a public consultation, which is being assessed. The whole place of incineration within the plan is now being reconsidered, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased about that. I entirely support the proximity principle to which he referred, but ultimately it is a matter for local authorities to decide.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend be even firmer than he has been today in standing up to the Liberal Democrats, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, who take a remarkably negative approach towards incineration? As he will know, I am a long-term campaigner for good environmental solutions for waste, and the fact is that incineration does play a part, especially in relation to energy from waste solutions, in tackling the waste in our towns and cities.
    Mr. Meacher: The Government strongly support a waste management hierarchy whereby the prime goal is to reduce the generation of waste in the first place. Then, where waste is generated, to recycle, re-use, recover or compost it and then—and only if none of those options

    945
    is possible—to consider incineration and, conceivably, landfill. We have to meet very tough landfill directive targets by 2016.
    Our goal is the maximisation of recycling. Whether all the waste generated can be recycled is a moot point, but incineration will be chosen only where it is the best practicable environmental option—by that, I mean where it provides most benefits or least damage to the environment at acceptable cost, both in the long term and the short term, and that, very importantly, it will be considered only where it can be demonstrated that it will not crowd out future recycling options.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: The Minister will know of Wealden district council's success in reducing the need for incineration through its outstanding recycling programme. It is one of the most successful in the country and recycles almost half the household waste that it collects. Does he realise that the animal waste by-products order, to which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred, has put the scheme in jeopardy because it would prevent the inclusion of any meat products in the waste for recycling? That is clearly an unrealistic target. What steps can the Minister take to ensure that that unrealistic policy will not undermine the scheme and mean that we have to go further down the incineration route?
    Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already answered that question. I am aware that the animal waste by-products order, as it was originally drafted, could be construed as a constraint on composting. It originated in the Government's determination to block all channels that might conceivably resuscitate foot and mouth disease. However, the original drafting went further than intended and could constrain recycling. We therefore hope to table an amendment, which will ensure that there is no chance of causing another outbreak of foot and mouth and protect the genuine and desirable objective of maximising recycling.
    Norman Baker: On the proximity principle, does the Minister accept that transporting waste long distances for incineration means that those who generate it have less incentive to minimise it? Perhaps he knows that Brighton and Hove council is adamant both that it will not have an incinerator in its backyard and that my constituency will deal with its waste. Is not that another reason to discourage incineration? Is not it time for an incineration tax to support robustly the waste management hierarchy that the Minister proposes? The money raised could be used for doorstep recycling for every house in the country.
    Mr. Meacher: I have already said that the Government do not support any significant expansion of incineration. However, we do not rule out the possibility that it may be necessary in some cases. That cannot be refuted. Only 14 municipal solid waste incinerators exist in this country, and we incinerate 8 per cent. of our waste. Let us consider the green countries, if I may use that description. Denmark incinerates 50 per cent., the Netherlands 41 per cent., and Sweden 35 per cent. We intend to maintain our low level.
    946
    I strongly support the proximity principle, and the criteria for gathering waste to feed an incinerator would be considered in any application. The proximity principle is a key point in that.
    Paddy Tipping: The Minister has broad support for his emphasis on recycling. However, does he accept that well-designed, carefully monitored incineration plants that provide heat from waste have a place in our waste disposal strategy? Will he advocate that strongly against vested interests?
    Mr. Meacher: The Government have already made it clear that there are two criteria for applications for an incinerator. First, its size must be appropriate: it should be smaller rather than larger. Secondly, it should provide combined heat and power facilities when appropriate. The criteria for judging applications already take account of my hon. Friend's point.

    Warm Front
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If she will make a statement on the funding of the Warm Front programme. [101113]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Final decisions on allocations for Warm Front in 2003–04 are now being considered. Resources are tight and we will face difficult decisions. However, we are on track to meet our public service agreement target of assisting 600,000 households between 2001 and 2004, and we remain committed to achieving our other targets for eradicating fuel poverty.
    Dr. Cable: Two weeks after the Prime Minister put fuel poverty at the centre of energy strategy and the independent Fuel Poverty Advisory Group said that a 50 per cent. increase in the budget was needed to achieve the Government's target, why are contractors being told that they can expect budget cuts in the next financial year? Is not the Department making a fool of the Prime Minister?
    Margaret Beckett: No. There is some confusion in the reaction to the report, which covers the longer-term prospects. The Government have set ambitious targets as we approach, for example, 2010 and 2015. We remain committed to trying to achieve them. However, in a sense, we are ahead of our current targets. As I said, our PSA target is 600,000 households by 2004, and more than 500,000 households have already been assisted through Warm Front. When one takes into account all Government action rather than one specific scheme, an increase will take place this year.
    We would like to do more; we wanted to put even more resources into the scheme. We shall probably not be in a position to do that, but I repeat that decisions have not yet been made.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: If Warm Front requires more funding, should it not first put its own house in order? I am spending masses of time going round in circles with Warm Front, Lionheart, East Coast Gas, Dearle Henderson, Ideal Boilers and

    947
    DEFRA, trying to get a boiler in the home of an 83-year-old woman constituent working. A previous boiler worked but the new boiler does not. There are indications that the boilers from Ideal are known to be defective when they are installed. The whole thing needs sorting.
    Margaret Beckett: I am sorry to hear of the problem that my hon. Friend identified. If he finds that raising the matter in the House does not result in speedy activity, I urge him to raise the matter with me again and we will see if there is something that we can do to assist. In the longer term, we are reassessing the impact of the pilots to make sure that the money being made available is used as effectively as possible.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Government are required by law to implement a strategy that will lead to the end of fuel poverty for the vulnerable by 2010. The energy White Paper states:
    "energy efficiency is likely to be the cheapest, cleanest and safest way of addressing the four objectives"
    of the Government's energy policy. One of those objectives is
    "ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated".
    Why is it that the White Paper fails to set targets for improving energy efficiency and to allocate any new resources for achieving fuel poverty targets? Is not the consequence that 3 million people will continue to be condemned to live in homes that are not, in the Government's own words, "adequately and affordably" heated?
    Margaret Beckett: I know that memories are sometimes short in the House but when the hon. Gentleman's party was in Government, it presided over a tripling of fuel poverty involving 4 million people. He said that the Government "are required by law", as though it were a burden imposed by somebody else. It was actually this Government who placed that provision on the statute book. We are not only implementing it but ahead of the present target. However, I do not dissent from his observation that the White Paper identifies the enormous contribution that energy efficiency can make, not only to resolving fuel poverty but to the effective running of the economy and the prosperity and competitiveness of the business sector. Energy efficiency is extremely important and the Government remain committed to pursuing it with as much force as we can. Other agencies, energy companies and local authorities are involved in dealing with that issue as well as the Government directly.

    Non-food Crops
    Mr. David Heath: What measures she is taking to encourage sustainable markets for non-food crops. [101114]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): We have provided £70 million to develop markets for biomass and a further £29 million
    948
    to support the planting of energy crops. To encourage the market for transport biofuels, the Chancellor introduced a cut in the duty rate for biodiesel last July.
    Mr. Heath: Given that the Curry report in January 2002 stated that
    "England needs a long-term strategy for creating and exploiting opportunities in non-food crops"
    and that the area
    "should be a high-priority research and technology transfer effort"
    have not the Government's activities been extremely disappointing? What happened to the non-food crops centre and the stimulus for not just the planting of nonfood crops but plans for utilising them? Does the Minister really believe that the fiscal incentives so far for biofuel have been successful?
    Alun Michael: I indicated the financial incentives that have been made available. We are establishing a new centre of excellence to bring together industry, academia and Government to create the conditions for successful technology generation and transfer with the aim of creating a market, to which the sustainable farming and food strategy clearly makes reference.
    Brian White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that companies such as BP have said that they could use biofuels in their existing refineries but are experiencing problems in dealing with agencies such as Customs and Excise? In developing the new strategy, will my right hon. Friend ensure that relevant agencies are taken on board?
    Alun Michael: I was not aware of that, but I shall be happy to look into it. It has been suggested that the use of biomass is one of the main contributors to the renewables generation mix, the aim being to meet the target of 20 per cent. of electricity production through renewables by 2020. It is important for that reason.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The current round of World Trade Organisation negotiations will mean a collapse in the price of beet sugar produced in this country. What plans have the Government for the development of alternative uses for sugar beet, which will effectively become a non-food crop? Have they a co-ordinated approach to such plans, and if so which Department and which Minister are in charge?
    Alun Michael: Some work has been done by the Central Science Laboratory, and, as I have said, an announcement has been made of the intention to cut the duty rate for bio-ethanol. Both those measures will, I think, be helpful.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware that biofuels can be added immediately to either petrol or diesel, causing a reduction of some 65 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions? Does he accept that the development of a biofuel non-food crop market could have an immediate impact on climate change, and will he discuss with his

    949
    colleagues in the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Transport how that market might best be introduced?
    Alun Michael: I think my hon. Friend's essential point is that we are talking about the creation of a market. It is difficult for the creation of a market to be instant, but I assure my hon. Friend that my colleagues in the DTI and the Treasury share our wish for it to take place.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister now answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)?
    Alun Michael: The question asked by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) clearly involves different responsibilities. The Chancellor has responsibilities for duty, and my colleagues in the Department for Transport and the DTI have their own responsibilities. We at DEFRA are positively promoting the development of the market, which is why scientific and other research is being carried out. I would expect the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) to be more interested in those facts than in an over-simplistic question about who is in charge.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Given European Union enlargement and the changes we need to make in the common agricultural policy, is it not crucial to make biofuels successful? Is it not vital for us to have more discussions with the National Farmers Union and others to ensure that the changes succeed and the agriculture industry can survive?
    Alun Michael: Indeed. The work being done is supported by organisations such as the NFU, and the EU biofuels directive is expected to set indicative targets that will help the development of the market to which a number of Members have referred.

    EU Water Framework Directive
    Mr. David Amess: What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the European water framework directive on UK industry. [101115]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government published an assessment in 2001, and we plan to publish an updated version later this year.
    Mr. Amess: Does the Minister accept that the cost of implementation is expected to be known by 2015? What impact does he expect the directive to have on water pricing? Finally, can he clear up the mystery of why the directive makes no mention of the Water Bill with which the other place is currently dealing?
    Mr. Morley: I can certainly deal with the last point. The Water Bill is not designed to implement the
    950
    framework directive; it has implications for such things as abstraction management and water transfer, which will have a bearing on the framework.
    I do not think there will be a big impact on consumer prices in the medium term. As the hon. Gentleman said, we expect the directive to be implemented in 2015 and some of the price implications to be known in about 2012. We are currently conducting a price review. There will clearly be price implications—I would not want to pretend otherwise—but a range of measures are being implemented in relation to water quality, ecological quality, pollution control and the nitrate directive, which will help us reach our target and will reduce the overall cost.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend will know that houses in many villages in Thanet and Dover are not yet connected to mains sewerage. Is there anything in the water framework directive or in the Water Bill that is being introduced along the Corridor to make it easier for water companies to put rural villages on to mains sewerage?
    Mr. Morley: WS Atkins is conducting a survey on private sewerage, although I realise that that is not a complete link to my hon. Friend's question. The issue is a serious one in his constituency, and he has raised it assiduously on behalf of his constituents on several occasions. The situation in respect of costs and responsibility is complex and that is one of our considerations as part of the overall policy on water provision.
    Mr. David Lidington: Can the Minister confirm that the water framework directive requires that there be zero emissions of such substances as mercury, which is emitted into the earth's atmosphere by volcanoes, and of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which emit from every combustion process known to man? Will the Minister indicate how on earth British industry is supposed to meet that impossible requirement?
    Mr. Morley: With respect, the hon. Gentleman takes far too literal a view of the directive, although, as he rightly says, there will be trace elements of such chemicals. However, chemicals such as mercury are serious pollutants and we need to take action to try to minimise them. The water framework directive indicates the most appropriate and proportionate way of dealing with such issues and there is provision for reasonable derogations in its application. I do not think that the approach is as fundamental and unreasonable as was suggested.
    Mr. Lidington: I am afraid that I hold to the old-fashioned view that one requires a literal reading of legislation that imposes penalties on either individuals or industries.
    May I take the Minister back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on the possible costs to consumers? Does the Minister share the view held by a number of water companies that the costs of the directive to the water industry alone could be in the region of £4 billion to £4.5 billion and that it could lead to an increase in

    951
    individual water bills of up to 10 per cent? That is the view of the water industry. Does the Minister disagree with that assessment and, if not, how does he propose to alleviate the additional stealth tax that it would impose on households?
    Mr. Morley: I do not accept those figures, which think the hon. Gentleman bases on Water UK projections. They include a range of costs resulting from directives that are currently going through, and will thus be an accumulating factor in meeting the water framework directive. At this stage, an accurate projection of costs is premature. Of course, we need some idea about them; that is why we produced impact assessments. There will also be further refinement of the figures in a report later this year.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: If she will make a statement on her policy on fishermen from EU accession countries fishing in UK waters under flags of convenience. [101116]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Only vessels licensed by their respective member state and third-country vessels licensed by the European Commission may fish in European and UK waters.
    Mr. Simmonds: I thank the Minister for that answer. As he will be aware, fishermen in Boston are gravely concerned both about other EU vessels fishing in the Wash and about the current closure of the mussel beds. Will the Minister today assure my constituents that he will resolve the contradictory policies of English Nature and the Eastern sea fisheries joint committee and reopen the mussel beds to allow the fishermen from Boston to go back to work?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's latter point was a very good way of working into his question a local issue, which is, I know, of concern both to him as the MP and also to his local fishermen. I have raised the issue of the mussel beds with English Nature and I want any action to be based on proper scientific evidence and to be proportional in its impact on the industry.
    On the access of Spain and Portugal, and of other countries in future under the accession agreements, the principle of relative stability was agreed and included in the reformed common fisheries policy at the December Fisheries Council. That will protect the UK quota share of quota species and will not allow access to other member states.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Given that the common fisheries policy is essentially a political policy, rather than a conservation policy—it is concerned with doling out catches to nations—will my hon. Friend make strenuous efforts to try to ensure that there is more effective monitoring of other European nations' catches and by-catches, particularly in the North sea but in British waters generally, because we have a problem, first, as Spain is now able to fish there and it will be
    952
    anxious to build up a track record and, secondly, with Danish industrial fishing catching large by-catches of immature white fish?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend raises a very serious point. On the need for uniform enforcement across the European Union, which was agreed at the December Council, we are, for example, extending satellite monitoring across the EU to another range of vessel sizes. On the by-catch strategy, which was also agreed in December, we are looking at the by-catch in the industrial fleet sector and, indeed, at the impact that the by-catch right across the fishing fleet has on stocks, as well as at how the various fishing methods contribute to that. I take my hon. Friend's point that the CFP has been far too much of a political tool in the past, and we must concentrate much more on the conservation priorities of fisheries management.
    David Burnside: The Minister must realise that running a fishing vessel is like running a small business—it has revenue and it has costs. If he goes to see his opposite number in the Irish Republic, for example, he will find that other EU member states give massive capital grants for replacing, refurbishing and modernising vessels, which produces unfair competition against the fishing vessels that come out of Ardglass, Portavogie and Kilkeel, as well as fishing vessels and fishing businesses in England, Scotland and Wales. Will he look at the example from the Irish Republic and try to give our fishing industry the same sort of Government support?
    Mr. Morley: I have to be honest with the hon. Gentleman: I genuinely believe that public subsidies that increase fishing capacity and effort are entirely unsustainable; they go against the principles of sustainability. I appreciate that some member states are really rather addicted to those subsidies, but I am glad to say that those subsidies will end in 2004 and will not be available in any member state. As for our own fishing fleets and those of Northern Ireland, we have funds available through FIFG—the financial instrument for fisheries guidance—which is designed to be used much more sustainably, not least in helping fishermen to add value to their catches. That is a much better way to use such funds.

    Foot and Mouth Disease
    Michael Fabricant: What steps she is taking to minimise the possibility of reinfection of the national herd with foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [101119]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have taken a large number of measures, including improving the detection of illegal meat imports, banning swill feeding, subjecting animal movements to licensing and a standstill period and strengthening the contingency plans for dealing with an outbreak. Details are set out in the Government's response to the FMD inquiries published last November.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister mentions the illegal importation of meat, and he will know that the British Veterinary Association believes that that is one of the prime causes of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Does he agree with the Governments of the United States, Australia and New Zealand who believe that one of the best ways to detect illegal meat imports is to use specialised sniffer dogs? How many sniffer dogs do we have at British seaports and airports?
    Mr. Morley: We currently have two, which is two more than the previous Conservative Government used at ports. Of course putting in place border control measures is very important, but the hon. Gentleman should also be aware that, although the virus may well have come into the country through some form of illegal meat import, it spread because of the failure to observe rules on the use of pigswill and in processing and to report the fact that animals had the disease. That resulted in the disease becoming widespread in this country, with catastrophic results. So we need a range of measures, not just one, if we are to tackle the control of the disease.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Does my hon. Friend know the names of the dogs?[Interruption]. I have not finished yet. If we cannot stop illegal drugs and illegal immigrants coming into this country, we will never stop all illegal imports of meat. The reality is that we can safeguard against a further outbreak of foot and mouth disease only by routinely vaccinating all the animals that are susceptible. What efforts are going into developing that vaccine?
    Mr. Morley: We have access to a range of vaccines, but complex issues are associated with how they are applied. As my hon. Friend will know, in response to independent inquiries, we are moving vaccine use up as part of our response strategy. As I said, if we are to have an effective strategy to combat disease, we must apply a range of measures. I confess that although I take a close interest in the work of the dogs, I am not aware of their names.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Given that under the terms of the European Union animal by-products regulation vans carrying carcases will be moving from farm to farm, which will significantly increase the risk of infection and reinfection, will the Minister explain why he agreed to that regulation? It will do away with the practice of disposing of fallen stock on farms, which has been going on for thousands of years. Who will pay for it? Will it be the local taxpayer, the national taxpayer or the farmer?
    Mr. Morley: The collection of fallen stock from farms is nothing new. Vehicles go on to farms. People who go through the process understand the biosecurity issue well. Given the risks of disease, which we have just discussed, and the public health and environmental issues, the basis for the European directive is logical. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is spending about £30 million a year on the collection of fallen stock for a variety of reasons—the over-30-months scheme, and transmissible spongiform encephalopathy monitoring. We have told farming
    954
    organisations that we are prepared to use that money as the basis for a national collection and to provide funding for organising start-up, but it is not unreasonable that the livestock sector should contribute to what is a problem in that sector. We are trying to approach the matter in partnership and to deal with the issues in a practical sense.
    Mr. David Curry: The Minister will know that foot and mouth disease is at its most stubborn in the sheep flock, where it is hardest to detect. The Government have relaxed the 20-day rule to six days, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is serious concern about two further elements: the European proposal for double tagging of sheep and the severe restrictions on sheep movements, which will make undertaking normal business difficult for farmers. Will he ensure that the regulations are always set at the minimum level necessary to achieve security and that they will be designed to be relaxed as soon as possible so that trade can take place and farmers may have at least some hope that their already poor incomes will recover?
    Mr. Morley: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. The fact that we have changed the 20-day rule to a six-day standstill is a reflection of trying to balance the best veterinary and scientific advice that we can get on risk reduction, the practical problems and the effect that the standstill had on the livestock sector. The six-day standstill is a fair compromise and I am confident that the vast majority of the sector will support it and ensure that it works. On double tagging, there is a serious problem with traceability in the sheep sector as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware. I accept that the EU may not have given adequate thought to some practical issues. We will certainly put forward the practical arguments that we hear from the industry about the difficulties of applying the scheme.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What estimate she has made of changes to the cost of the common agricultural policy resulting from the proposed extension of the EU. [101120]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Enlargement to a European Union of 25 is forecast by the Commission to cost?6.3 billion in common agricultural policy direct payments and market support in 2013. This is consistent with the ceilings on agricultural expenditure agreed at the European Council in October 2002.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: The common agricultural policy has cost European central funds more than £100,000 million over the past five years, apart from the massive sums spent by member states and the extra costs borne by the consumer. Does not the Secretary of State accept that we will face a nightmare of spending with the extension of the CAP, bearing in mind the enormous potential for extension in countries such as Poland and Romania? Will she say whether there is any real

    955
    possibility of a fundamental review of the CAP, which we were promised would come before the extension of Europe?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that a huge amount of discussion is now under way about reform of the CAP. I accept two of the points that he has made: first, it has long been a very expensive policy for taxpayers and consumers; secondly, it is important that we make sure that we can curtail that expenditure, not least because of enlargement. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government continue to work with all the vigour at our command to ensure as much reform as we can conceivably achieve.
    Lawrie Quinn: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to make an assessment of the impact of these changes on upland areas such as the North York moors and on less favoured areas where producers are struggling quite a lot now, where the impact could be even worse in terms of a sustainable agricultural system?
    Margaret Beckett: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's concern and I know that he speaks for his constituents in such areas in expressing that anxiety. I assure him that a great deal of work is going on all the time to assess the shifting proposals that are being made, as they are developed and expanded, to assess their impact on all areas. In general terms, we believe that the proposals would be beneficial to the farming community, including less favoured areas, as a result of the combined impact of the different measures. I assure my hon. Friend that we keep that under close review.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State will be aware that the structure of British farming is that we have larger farms than those on the continent. We therefore stand to lose most from a reform of the CAP. Does she agree that it would be intolerable for British farmers to lose out but for the British taxpayer to continue to pay into the CAP only to subsidise continental farmers who would compete with British farmers in the single market?
    Margaret Beckett: First, I entirely accept that the impact of CAP reform, as with the impact of the existing CAP, is different in different member states. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that we have many larger farms. He will have noticed that, already, the Commission's initial suggestion of a ceiling on payments is no longer in the proposals. I assure him that it is no part of this Government's negotiating objectives to see British farmers suffer at the expense of others.
    Mr. James Gray: The expression "no part of this Government's objectives" will be taken as a slightly disappointing reaction by the National Farmers Union and farmers. Does the Secretary of State not accept that 75 per cent. of continental farms receive
    956
    less than €5,000 a year, but 43 per cent. of British farms are of a size whose subsidy will be heavily slashed under current proposals? Will she not toughen up her stance on this matter? Will she not fight for British farmers who have already been devastated, and many of whom are suicidal?
    Margaret Beckett: Mindful of your injunction to give short answers, Mr. Speaker, I answered the point raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), which was about the larger farms. I entirely accept the point that the present structure of the proposals, with a franchise that excludes smaller farms, has a differential impact in different member states. We shall continue to fight for a scheme that is fair, both to British farmers and to others, not least because we are the only member state with real experience of a scheme of modulation, and it is only because it is seen to be fair to all that it is accepted at all.
    10. Mr. Desmond Swayne: What assessment she has made of the impact that the proposed reforms to the common agricultural policy will have upon farmers in the United Kingdom. [101121]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): We have undertaken various economic and impact assessments of the Commission's reform proposals. They conclude that, overall, the reforms would have a positive effect on farmers and on farm incomes in the UK.
    Mr. Swayne: I find that hard to believe. The July 2002 proposals—the Government's regulatory impact assessment—did not deal with the sheep, beef and pig sectors. Will the report that is now due, consequent on the consultation period that has just ended, put that right?
    Margaret Beckett: First, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finds the assessments hard to believe, but I assure him that they are available on the Department's website, a great many assessments are being undertaken, and it is not only the Government who believe that such a package of reform could be beneficial to UK farmers. With regard to issues of regulation, we continue to keep under review all of the regulatory approach that we adopt, in an effort, for example, through a whole-farm approach, to reduce and to simplify the regulations that farming faces.
    Mr. Wayne David: Has there been any assessment of the likely impact of the mid-term review of the CAP on food prices in the United Kingdom?
    Margaret Beckett: Well, there will be a varying impact. We do not expect a particularly dramatic impact in the short term, but I assure my hon. Friend that the impact on consumers, taxpayers and farmers is very much part of the assessment that we are making.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): It will be a pleasure.
MONDAY 10 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
TUESDAY 11 MARCH—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the second report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on the foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism.
At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
WEDNESDAY 12 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, followed by debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) finds satisfaction with the business.
THURSDAY 13 MARCH—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Fireworks Bill, followed by motions to approve money and ways and means resolutions on the Marine Safety Bill, followed by debate on flood and coastal defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 14 MARcH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 17 MARCH—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill 2003.
TUESDAY 18 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Extradition Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 MARCH—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Bill.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
THURSDAY 20 MARCH—Second Reading of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill[Lords].
The House will also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
FRIDAY 21 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to any Act.
The House may wish to be reminded that the Budget statement will be made on Wednesday 9 April. The House will now sit on Friday 11 April and will, subject to the progress of business, rise for the Easter recess on Monday 14 April and return on Monday 28 April.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader for that information. Will he now do us the courtesy of telling us just why the Budget date has been so delayed? Why was the Budget date announced so late, and why was it sneaked out rather surreptitiously yesterday in a written ministerial statement? What is going wrong? Is the
958
Chancellor ashamed of his Budget? Is he trying to avoid us in some way? Will the Leader come straight about this? Surely we and the country deserve an explanation rather than a series of late, sneaky and shamefaced announcements.
I should like to return to the dodgy dossier. I think that we need either a statement or a debate on its status and its provenance. I say that because on 10 February the Prime Minister, no less, said in a written answer:
"It is a Government document".—[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 583W.]
On 24 February, the Prime Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin):
"This was a Government document cleared in the normal way."—[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 254W.]
On 27 February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) asked about the dodgy dossier. The Leader of the House said:
"I understand that the paper was not issued as a Command Paper and, therefore, the process of ministerial accountability for White Papers would not necessarily apply."—[Official Report, 27 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 412.]
Surely if the dossier is a Government document, as the Prime Minister has said, with all the weight and significance that that implies, especially on a subject as important as Iraq, we must now know—I ask the Leader of the House to tell us now or to allow a debate on it—who saw the document, who authorised it, whether it was done at official level or whether a Minister is responsible for it, its contents and what it says. In the name of open government, please tell us who.
Mr. Cook: Over the past 50 years, there have been 22 Budgets in April. There is no particular delay in having another Budget in April; indeed, this Budget will be earlier than last year's Budget.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no delay in the announcement. The Budget date was announced as soon as it was agreed. As Opposition Members appear concerned that there was delay in the announcement, I would have thought that they would welcome the fact that there was no attempt at concealment.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Chancellor's written ministerial statement. The normal practice has been to announce the Budget date in response to a planted question. As he knows, written ministerial statements are more transparent, more obvious and more clear. They replace the written parliamentary question. There is nothing different in the way in which this Budget has been announced from any preceding Budget.
I have nothing to add to what has already been said on the dossier. It was cleared in the normal way.
Mr. Forth: By whom?
Mr. Cook: I do not know, nor would I expect to know, who saw the document in advance—nor do I think that it is an important matter in relation to the debate on the severe and grave matters that concern us in international affairs. It would do Opposition Members more credit if they focused on the central grave questions that we face in international affairs, rather

959
than picking at the edges in a desperate attempt to distance themselves from a policy that we are told they fully agree with.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I express my sincere sympathy to the Leader of the House, who has lost out again in his long-standing battle with the Chancellor? After the announcement, for the first time, of a long-term parliamentary plan to enable hon. Members to plan their work in their constituencies, and after the efforts, with the support of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, to have a proper diary for the business of the House, I hope that the Leader will agree that it is disappointing that the Chancellor seems to be responsible for planning the business of the House—or is it President Bush or Saddam Hussein? What will be the future of the programme that the Leader has announced? After all, many of the matters that he has announced today are not all that urgent. Are we to wait on the Chancellor's whim before we know what the business of the House will be? Is it not time to have some mechanism that will allow the House to take back control over its own business? I understand that the Scottish Parliament, which the Leader visited recently, has such a mechanism.
In discussions that I hope that the Leader will hold with Opposition parties—in which I hope he will allow Back Benchers to influence the business of the House—will he consider in particular the mental health Bill, which was referred to during last week's business questions? There should be consultation on that Bill—not only on its scope, but on its pre-legislative scrutiny and timetable. In that regard, will he look in particular at early-day motion 263, on the victims of schizophrenia?
[That this House welcomes the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 43 on the use of newer, atypical antipsychotic drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia, issued in June 2002; believes that the guidance is a real step forward in delivering better care for those with schizophrenia; recognises the importance of ensuring that patients have an informed choice about their treatment options; recalls the NHS' statutory obligation to ensure that all NICE recommendations are implemented within three months of issue; notes the concerns raised at the Rethink severe mental illness conference, Only the Best in December 2002, over the slowness of implementation; and urges NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts to ensure that sufficient funding is made available to implement the NICE guidance quickly and effectively to improve the lives of those with schizophrenia.]
Mr. Cook: I found value in my visit to the Scottish Parliament. I believe that there are things that the oldest of Parliaments can learn from the newest of Parliaments. I look forward with confidence, in the light of the success of the Scottish Parliament, to the reelection of the governing coalition. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman would attach himself to that wish for the coalition.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sympathy, but, among the many things for which I may take responsibility, I have never pretended that I can set the date of the Budget.
Mr. Forth: Ah!
Mr. Cook: I do not think that I have made an especially contentious statement.
My responsibility is to ensure that the House can fully scrutinise the Government and fully debate the business that the Government put before it. That is why it is important that the House should have a full four days for debate after Budget day, as would normally be the case. I would not have thought that Opposition Members would begrudge one day of the recess to allow the opportunity for full scrutiny of what will be an excellent Budget.[Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Members should not tempt me too far; otherwise, I may suggest that, because of the Government's excellent record in soundly managing the economy, a fifth or sixth day of scrutiny may be well worth while.
I note what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) says about the mental health Bill. In fairness, I think that we have consulted more often than any previous Administration on arrangements for the introduction of Bills. I shall certainly bear in mind what he said about a Bill that has attracted deep and considerable interest not just in the House but among the public outside.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be a debate in the House before Britain casts its vote at the United Nations for or against a war with Iraq? I have heard reports that arrangements are being made for the House to be recalled on Saturday 15 March, two days after hostilities will have begun in Iraq. The House will then be asked to approve what has already taken place. Can he set my mind at rest and assure me that the House will be able to vote on the propriety of a war with Iraq before British troops are committed to it?
Mr. Cook: I shall attempt to put my hon. Friend's mind at rest, but I anticipate that that is a serious undertaking that I have not previously managed to achieve.
I repeat from the Dispatch Box what has been said repeatedly by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary: it is both our wish and our intention that there should be a vote in the House of Commons on the commitment of any British troops and that we want—the Foreign Secretary carefully explained why this is in the interest of the Government as well as that of the House—that debate and vote to take place before troops are put into action. Plainly, we have got always to reserve as our primary consideration the safety and security of our troops. However, subject to that necessary reservation—with which, I think, all Members would agree—we want that debate and vote to take place before there is any military action.
I am aware that a story about a Saturday debate is currently running in the press, and I have received questions about it. However, I do not recognise the suggestion. I am puzzled about why it would be necessary to have a recall on a Saturday given that the weekend to which my hon. Friend refers is preceded and followed by a sitting week of the House of Commons. I hope that we will be able to debate the matter in good time and at a time that will not inconvenience Members.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many members of the

961
staff, who serve us so well, are obliged to take their holidays during parliamentary recesses? Is he aware that I have been approached, as a member of the Commission, by a number of staff who wonder why the Budget cannot be announced on the Tuesday or, indeed, the Monday of the week beginning 7 April? We could still sit on the Friday and have our four days of Budget debate. The staff, who serve us so well, would not have to cancel—sometimes at great expense—holidays that they have made in accordance with the conditions of service that we impose on them.
Mr. Cook: I am well aware that the Commission is examining the position of those members of staff who may be in the position to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, I draw the House's attention to the fact that we have not yet passed any motion on the Easter recess. Indeed, the timetable that I produced last October—I was cautious when I announced it to the House—says that "all dates are provisional". There is a value in having provisional dates, but it is important to bear in mind the fact that they are provisional.
Michael Fabricant: I might as well tear up the dodgy diary.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman seeks to make.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot see any reason for hon. Members to shout at the Leader of the House.[Laughter.]
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that you, Mr. Speaker, carried the House with you in that customary consensual intervention.
I put it to Conservative Members that it is perfectly plain that we need to make sure that the Budget is adequately scrutinised. I really would not have thought that they would object to spending one day of their recess considering the Budget debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Staff."] Nor, indeed, do I believe that the staff who serve this place well would wish to see consideration of the Budget skimped so that it is not properly considered.[Interruption.] If hon. Members let me continue, I will remind the House that, when we announced the parliamentary timetable, I made it plain that the first week of the recess would be a constituency week. I would not expect the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to complain at having to be dragged from his constituency to spend a day in this place debating Government business.
Ms Meg Munn: Now that the Fire Brigades Union seems to be accepting the idea of modernisation, is it not time for hon. Members to begin to adapt themselves to the modernisation of this place rather than seeking continually to overturn the will of the House in respect of our new hours?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that we are making progress on our discussions with the FBU about modernisation and the pay package. I hope that they are concluded successfully. She is correct to
962
point out that we cannot lecture the rest of Britain on the importance of modernising and changing working practices if we are not willing to do so in a way that makes us more relevant to the world outside and more in touch with the lifestyles that our constituents lead.
Mr. David Cameron: Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister used a written ministerial statement to withdraw completely the local authority social housing grant? May we have an urgent proper statement or debate on that? Local authorities in constituencies such as mine have done everything that they were meant to do—pay down their debt and transfer houses to housing associations—to provide low-cost accommodation for local people, but that is now impossible because of the Government's gerrymandering. They are taking money away from local authorities in the south and giving it to their own badly run authorities elsewhere.
Mr. Cook: I shall consider the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but let us not lose sight of the fact that the Government are spending three times more on social housing than the Conservative Government whom he supported. Within recent memory, we have had a statement on the future of housing, in which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced a further £5 billion for social housing. Let there be no doubt about the Government's commitment to social housing. We are providing much larger sums than the Conservatives provided in the past or could ever provide in the future if they persist in their commitment to cut public spending by 20 per cent.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the question of business, I regularly ask the staff what is on the agenda for next week. Usually, people in the post office and on the door know in advance what is likely to happen. My right hon. Friend said, although not in totality, that the House will not meet on a Saturday, yet when I came in this morning and asked, "Anything on the agenda?", the staff said, "Yes. There's a distinct possibility that we'll be having a vote about Iraq on a Saturday, so you'd better clear your desk." Is my right hon. Friend ruling that out completely, because, if so, it will be the first time that the staff have been wrong?
Mr. Cook: Plainly, I must spend more time in the Members' Post Office. Perhaps we can have next week's business statement there or in the Members' Lobby. I can only repeat that at present we have no plans to meet on a Saturday—[Interruption.] I am not seeking to provide the footnotes to the wriggle room; I genuinely have no plans at present to recall the House on a Saturday. Should such an eventuality arise, I anticipate that my hon. Friend would much rather that we were recalled and debated the matter than we did not debate it at all. At the moment, however, I do not anticipate that necessity.
Mr. David Wilshire: The right hon. Gentleman will know that informal consideration was given to holding the Report stage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill the week after next, but that idea appears to have been dropped. Can he assure the House that, when he announces its Report stage, the

963
Government will not use it to introduce anything that they may have agreed in this week's talks? Any further changes to the policing of Northern Ireland deserve to be in a Bill of their own and given proper consideration in both Houses rather than being sneaked into the Report stage of a Bill that has already been considered fully in another place.
Mr. Cook: As I understand the timetable for discussions in Northern Ireland, the parties to the agreement have gone away to consult their Members and their contacts. They will probably return in April, which is some way in the future. I am not aware of whether that will produce a requirement for fresh legislation or fresh legislative requirements. Should it do so, I anticipate that the House would want to ensure that any step necessary to consolidate an agreement is carried through expeditiously. I cannot anticipate at the moment whether there would be a specific vehicle for that or whether it would affect the Bill. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we attach high importance to the Bill. It is part of our agreements with Northern Ireland and we would wish to make reasonable progress on it.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given the awesome American weaponry lined up surrounding Iraq and the terrifying effects that the strategy—"shock and awe"—will have on the civilian population, it is essential that we have a debate before a week on Saturday, because everybody knows that the countdown to war has begun. We need that debate on a substantive motion so that hon. Members can express their view on whether or not we go to war.
Mr. Cook: I do not think that there is any difference between my hon. Friend and I on that point. Indeed, the Government—I, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—have repeatedly said from the Dispatch Box that we would wish to bring before the House a substantive motion in the light of any Security Council resolution that may be agreed, and that we would want that to happen, if it was at all possible, in advance of any military conflict. That position stands. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government regard it as important not only to the House, but to themselves and to British troops, that they should have that decision by the House of Commons in the event of any conflict taking place.
Pete Wishart: Which of the political parties in Scotland does the Leader of the House believe will benefit most from the Budget statement being made in the middle of the Scottish election campaign?
Mr. Cook: I am confident that the Labour party will benefit most from the Scottish campaign in any event. I am slightly puzzled by the anxiety of the Scottish National party about the timing of the Budget statement. That anxiety makes sense only if the SNP assumes that a display of the sound economy of Britain, the strength of the economy under the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a positive Budget that is popular and well received in Britain and particularly in Scotland will jeopardise whatever small chances it has of taking control in Scotland. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's confidence in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his confidence that it will be a positive Budget and a popular one in Scotland.
Joan Ruddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of UN personnel administering the oil-for-food programme in the north of Iraq has been reduced from 500 to 200, and that U K-based NGOs such as Christian Aid and Save the Children were advised last week by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to withdraw their personnel not only from Iraq but from Israel and Palestine? Will he urgently communicate this question to his right hon. Friends and discuss with them the potential humanitarian consequences for the 60 per cent. of people in Iraq who are dependent on that aid?
Mr. Cook: I am not aware of the figures that my hon. Friend quotes, but I will pass on her concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government attach high importance to the oil-for-food programme in northern Iraq, and I am confident that it would be able to continue even with a reduction in staff, provided that the resources continue to get through. It is striking that, under the UN's direct administration of the oil-for-food programme in northern Iraq, child mortality has gone down, the health of the population has improved and education levels have improved, in stark contrast to the way in which all those measures have gone in the opposite direction in the rest of Iraq, where it is Saddam, not the UN, who administers the programme.
Sir George Young: Reverting to the wholly unsatisfactory arrangements for the Budget, does the Leader of the House recall saying on 29 October:
"I have been in the House for almost 30 years without ever being able to plan from one recess to the next when I can count on being away from Westminster. The motion will enable Members to make sensible arrangements more than two months ahead."—[Official Report, 29 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 697.]
What does he now say to Members and Members' staff who took his advice and made sensible arrangements?
Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should not have that fourth day of debate on the Budget, I will be only too happy to consider it. I suspect that some of my hon. Friends will welcome that proposal. However, I think it is important that the House should fully scrutinise the Budget, and the job of scrutiny by hon. Members must take priority over the travel arrangements that we or our staff may have made. When I announced that diary in October, I made it plain that we were combining the constituency week with the Easter recess. For an important piece of Government business such as the Budget, it is not unreasonable that hon. Members should be in the House rather than in their constituency for only one day of that week. Even without that day, the Easter recess will be longer than most Easter recesses of the past four decades.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May we have an early statement from Health Ministers on the funding of longterm care for the elderly? My right hon. Friend will be aware that the health service ombudsman recently completed an investigation and found that in four cases—probably out of hundreds, and perhaps thousands—very elderly people had to pay for their own

965
long-term care, when the NHS should properly have paid. The matter concerns all Members. Many of their constituents are affected, and the Secretary of State for Health ought to be able to assure the House that health authorities and trusts are not misinterpreting the guidance sent out by the Department of Health.
Mr. Cook: It would indeed be a serious matter if local authorities were not properly applying the Department of Health's guidance. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would be happy to pursue the matter if my hon. Friend has specific cases in mind and can provide us with that data. On the broad issue, I assure him that the Government have increased the funding for social services throughout England and Wales by 6 per cent. per annum, compared with a serious restriction on the funds for those local authorities under the previous Government. The increase has enabled local authorities throughout England to carry through an increase in the fees that they pay for long-term residential care, in many cases up to 10 per cent. I regret that in some cases that has left nursing homes charging above the local authority contribution, but we are increasing the funds, the local authority is increasing the fees, and between us we will do all we can to meet the problem.
Mr. Michael Jack: I can well appreciate that the Chancellor may have wanted to delay the date of the Budget until the end of the tax year to see just how bad the tax revenue situation is, but, given that he will have drawn those conclusions by 5 April, can the Leader of the House explain why we cannot have the Budget on the Monday of the week in question, so that instead of devoting just four days to scrutinising the Chancellor's bad stewardship of the economy we could devote five?
Mr. Cook: It is worth recalling, and I am sure the Chancellor will recall it when we meet on 9 April, that Britain has one of the lowest unemployment rates of any country in Europe, and the lowest that we have had for a generation; it has one of the lowest inflation rates anywhere in the industrialised world; and it has the fastest growth rate of any of the G7 countries. That is a splendid record, which was praised by the International Monetary Fund report earlier this week as an enviable record, and it is envied by the other industrialised nations. I am sure that when he speaks to the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make sure that the House and the rest of the country fully understand the strength of the British economy as a result of his sound management.
David Winnick: Is it not odd that whereas the large majority of our constituents will simply have Good Friday and Easter Monday off, there are complaints when we are to have a recess of two weeks, as my right hon. Friend mentioned? Why do Tory MPs complain time and again that the recess is too long—too short.[Laughter.] Many of us take the view that it would do no harm if the Easter recess were just one week.
Mr. Cook: I would not wish to put that last proposition to a vote. My hon. Friend raises a serious
966
issue. Before we rise for the Easter recess, there will be a debate on the Easter Adjournment, to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will reply, and there will follow three or four hours during which hon. Members will argue that we should not rise for the recess because there is an important and pressing issue to debate. When that event comes round this year, I expect that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will remind them that they have consistently and repeatedly objected to coming back for only one day to debate the Budget.
Rev. Martin Smyth: You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the House will be able to don the shamrock on 17 March. Will the Leader of the House make sure that a Foreign Office Minister replies to the debate on terrorism on Tuesday and tells us what steps have been taken to deal with the international weaponry that has been stored in the Republic of Ireland and used in terrorism, and the more recent developments that have told us throughout Ireland that there are international terrorist cells in various parts?
Mr. Cook: Of course, international terrorism will be considered in the debate on the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee. To the extent that the situation in Northern Ireland is relevant, it obviously can be considered both in the debate and in the response to it but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree, internal terrorism in Northern Ireland is not an international matter but is firmly one for the United Kingdom Government to pursue as a domestic issue. Plainly, there are international links, of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware, and I would be surprised if a Unionist Member did not contribute to the debate to highlight them.
Mr. David Chaytor: Regardless of arrangements that may have been made for a debate on possible military action in Iraq, does my right hon. Friend agree that tomorrow's reports by Dr. Blix to the Security Council will be of crucial significance in determining people's attitudes to military action? In the light of that, is he of the clear opinion that next Wednesday it is more important to debate Welsh affairs than Dr. Blix's report?
Mr. Cook: The debate on Wales has already been deferred precisely so that we could debate Iraq—it was a casualty of our debate on Iraq the other week. It is important that my Welsh colleagues and Members who represent our voters in Wales should have an opportunity to explore Welsh issues.
I entirely concur with my hon. Friend about the importance of Hans Blix's report tomorrow. It is important that the world should hear from him at first hand what progress, or lack of it, he is making on the mandate that he was given by the Security Council. One of the reasons why we in Britain should take particular interest in what he says is that Britain, more than any other nation, was successful in taking the Iraq crisis on to the UN track, from which we secured the return of the weapons inspectors to Iraq. We shall therefore play close attention to what Hans Blix says tomorrow.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Can we have an early statement from the Foreign

967
Secretary on whether the language of Security Council resolution 1441 and the draft resolution that was recently tabled in fact provide proper authority for war? In that context, the Leader of the House will have seen the letter today in The Times from Professor Black, a distinguished jurist, saying that the language of 1441 does not provide a proper warrant for war and, furthermore, that the draft resolution, which we put before the Security Council, does not do so either. Surely we must probe that so that there is no misunderstanding about the legal basis for what the Government have in mind.
Mr. Cook: It is of course the right and duty of the House to probe the Government, and I do not doubt that in future debates on Iraq the right hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to make those points. However, I repeat to the House what has been said on a number of occasions, including most recently by the Prime Minister yesterday—there is no question of the Government taking any action that they believe to be contrary to international law. Should they take any action, they would only do so in the conviction that it is consistent with international law.
Keith Vaz: Could we have a debate next week on the report by the Office of Fair Trading about the pharmacy market that was published on 17 January? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern in my constituency and elsewhere about the effects of that report? It is competition gone mad, and will mean the closure of many high street pharmacies and the domination of that market by Tesco and Asda. Could we have an urgent debate before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is sitting on the Front Bench, has to make a decision?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell to my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the House's deep concern about that matter, which has been raised in three successive sets of business questions—a useful barometer of opinion and concern in the House. After last week's exchanges, when it was raised by no fewer than four Members, we communicated to the Department for Trade and Industry the House's interest in the matter.
My hon. Friend will be aware that we are half way through the 90-day period for a Government response. The Government are consulting appropriate representative bodies on their response, and will consult again on any draft proposals that we make in response to the OFT report. I assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of the concern that the matter is causing in Members' constituencies, and want to take action consistent with our NHS plan to make sure that there is a successful and diverse range of pharmacies in every community in Britain.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Leader of the House find time for the House as a whole to discuss the European Convention and its emerging proposals before they are cast in Giscardian tablets of stone and foisted on us as a putative constitution? Can the Government take into account the alarming divergent diplomatic postures of leading EU members, namely France and Germany, on the Iraqi crisis;
968
and does that not call into question the principles of ever closer union, as enunciated in the Maastricht treaty, on which the Convention is based?
Mr. Cook: Of course we are well aware of the considerable interest in the House on the development of the Convention on the Future of Europe. After all, as a House, we are unusual in having two representatives who serve on the Convention independent of our Government representatives. We therefore set up a unique Committee for Back Benchers to which those House representatives can report and where debates can be held. That Committee has met at least twice, and a further debate is coming up in Westminster Hall. However, the issue is important, and cannot be debated too often. I shall certainly bear in mind when it may be appropriate for the House to consider it.
In the meantime, the nature of such bodies and international negotiations means that proposals change as they proceed, so one should not necessarily take what is on the table now as what will be there at the end of the day.
Glenda Jackson: Is the Leader of the House aware that in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), on the Government's attempts to obtain a second UN resolution authorising war against Iraq even before the weapons inspectors had completed their second report, the Prime Minister said that
"in relation to the resolution, we are confident of securing the votes for that resolution and we will carry on working to that end."—[Official Report, 5 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 817.]
Today, however, we read in the newspapers that the Government's confidence is remarkably misplaced and they are attempting to cobble together a compromise resolution. That is the third time this week that the Government's action or policy on Iraq has been reported first in the press—B-52 bombers are to be allowed to use our islands as a terrestrial aircraft carrier, and there is the particular incident to which I have previously referred. Can we have a debate, if not on Iraq itself, then on the Government's failure to inform the House of such changes before they inform the press? The issue is of overwhelming national concern, and the House has consistently been kept in the dark.
Mr. Cook: I cannot think of a single issue in the past three months on which we have had more statements in the House than Iraq. I am confident that there will be future occasions when Ministers will report to Parliament, and Parliament will be able to debate the matter.
The Government have a clear commitment to seek a Security Council resolution. We are in the lead in trying to secure such a resolution, and shall continue to work for it. When we secure such a resolution, we shall bring it to the House for a debate and approval on a substantive motion. That remains our strategy, and we are committed to it.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: With reference to the legislation that the Government intend to introduce Monday week on elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, can the Leader of the House give a

969
commitment that there will be no further interference with the democratic process and the right of electors in Northern Ireland other than that which has already been announced, postponing elections from 1 May to 29 May? Furthermore, can he ask his colleagues to come to the House and give details of the paper, so far denied to representatives of the people of Northern Ireland who were not invited to the talks, on the deal that is currently under consideration, which consists of 29 pages and five annexes? Surely, the people of Northern Ireland have a right to know what has been discussed regarding the future of the Province. Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that he will publish that document and that it will be placed in the Library of the House so that the people of Northern Ireland can judge the merits or otherwise of the Government proposals?
Mr. Cook: I can certainly assure the House that when negotiations are concluded one way or another the Government will wish to make sure that the House is fully informed. I anticipate that at that moment there will probably be a statement to the House. At present, negotiations are proceeding among, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, those who are party to the agreement. It is hardly surprising that those parties that have chosen not to be party to the agreement have been excluded from those talks and the documents, which are necessarily work in progress. When that work is concluded, the hon. Gentleman and all Members of the House will share in the results.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the debate on the reform of the House of Lords has moved from unthinking muddle to profound confusion? Will he undertake to draft a motion, which the House might consider in an Adjournment debate, that would give us a chance to reflect thoughtfully on what has happened so far, and to see whether we can find a way forward that fulfils our commitment to democratise the second Chamber?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has an unerring capacity to find the helpful question. May I remind hon. Members that this matter was put to the House last month, and in that debate I sought to give the House an opportunity to find a consensual way forward? I fear that we failed on that occasion to find any clear, commanding, compelling agreement on a particular form of reform.
Mr. John Bercow: It is all the Prime Minister's fault.
Mr. Cook: No, it was the fault of every hon. Member who took part in the debate, in which we failed to find a majority for any single way forward on reform. As I have said since then, there will be no reform of the second Chamber until there is a majority in this Chamber for a particular way of reform. We shall certainly continue to look for that, but until we see the makings of such a majority, I think that it would be premature to bring the matter back to the House.
Chris Grayling: The Leader of the House will remember saying to me last week that the
970
Prime Minister—unlike his predecessors—had better things to do than to spend time sitting in important House of Commons debates. That statement was followed 24 hours later by the biggest parliamentary rebellion since the 1800s. Does the Leader of the House think that there is a connection between those two events? Will he tell us whether the Prime Minister will join us in the House for the conclusion of the Budget debate in the first week of the recess?
Mr. Cook: I have not previously been charged with being personally responsible for the biggest rebellion in the past 100 years of parliamentary history, and I will reflect gravely on the charge that the hon. Gentleman makes. I would remind hon. Members that the Prime Minister has not only come to the House to make a full statement and to answer questions on Iraq, and dealt with the matter repeatedly in the course of Prime Minister's questions, but has taken a very close personal interest in how the House debates it. For that reason, he uniquely spent two hours in front of the Liaison Committee answering questions from senior Members of the House. That is something that no previous Prime Minister, whether Labour or Conservative, has ever done. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister will of course continue to take a very close interest in
the Budget and in the debate that follows it.
Mr. Harry Barnes: What impact is the rebellion of 122 MPs over the Iraq issue having on the business of the House? Is the Leader of the House aware that, for many of those MPs, it was the first time that they had voted against the Whips? He must know that, once someone loses their political virginity, it is much easier for political promiscuity to take over. If whipping arrangements in the House were to collapse, what would happen to life as we know it?
Mr. Cook: I would be well advised to avoid any discussion about promiscuity and whipping. Of course I fully understand the strength of feeling in the House and in the country, and the vote last week revealed the very deep concern and worry in the country about the present situation in relation to Iraq. For me, that is why it is so important that we should stick with our strategy of making sure that this crisis is resolved through the United Nations, and that we secure that second resolution within the United Nations.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on an important matter which affects the health of all our constituents in the face of a possible terrorist threat? Last Monday, in a debate in the House in which I also took part as shadow Minister for national security, the Home Secretary said in an unguarded moment to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin):
"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.]
My right hon. Friend pointed out to the Home Secretary that that was factually inaccurate. We understand that there was then consternation approaching panic in the Department of Health and, as a result, the following morning the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction

971
and Community Safety, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), considerably watered down what the Home Secretary had said, when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in a debate in Westminster Hall. The Minister said that
"people should go to general practitioners if they want advice".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 204WH.]
It was clear by then that people could not approach their GPs for the vaccine. We believe that vaccines should be available now for any of our citizens who wish to be vaccinated. Will the Leader of the House urgently talk to the Home Office and the Department of Health, and can we have a debate on this crucial matter?
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to ensure that both those Departments receive the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made. In the meantime, so that the public outside can, to some extent, have their concerns allayed, I am happy to repeat what we have often sought to make clear, which is that we are not aware of any specific threat of the use of smallpox in the case of Britain.
Kevin Brennan: Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on preparations to avoid friendly fire—and, indeed, civilian casualties—in any joint military operations with US forces in Iraq? Is the Leader of the House aware that, in an answer to my named day written question for 10 February which was finally answered on 5 March, in which I had asked the Secretary of State for Defence about any representations that he had made on the use of amphetamines by US air force pilots, the Secretary of State said that that was a matter for the US authorities? Should not the British Government be making representations to the US authorities about the issue of amphetamines to US air force pilots, not least because they were cited in the case of the friendly-fire deaths of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan last year, and because they are banned in our own armed forces for precisely the reason that we should be making representations to the US?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend tempts me into an area that is very much within the province of my right hon. and hon. colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. I shall certainly draw his remarks to their attention, and they can consider what appropriate representations might be necessary. Of course, every possible effort is made to ensure that the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom can operate in a way in which any risk of casualties from friendly fire is diminished as far as is humanly possible.
Mr. David Heath: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to read the excellent Bill introduced by my noble Friend Lord Goodhart, which is due to be given a Second Reading tomorrow, entitled the Ministerial and other Salaries (Amendment) Bill, and which seeks to reduce the salary of the Lord Chancellor to that of a common-or-garden Cabinet Minister? When that Bill is passed in the other House, as I expect it to be, probably by acclamation, will the right hon. Gentleman provide an early opportunity
972
for this House to debate it? If not, can we at least have a debate on the role of the Lord Chancellor and the conduct of his Department?
Mr. Cook: I am delighted to say that one of the initiatives that we have taken is to create a Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. This is the first time in the history of the House of Commons that there has been such a Select Committee, and we therefore now have a new vehicle to ensure adequate debate on and scrutiny of the actions and responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor. On the question of his salary, it is important that we should pay adequate attention to equity and equality, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern that there should be equality within the Cabinet. Of course, it is also an important principle of new Labour that merit should be adequately rewarded.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Given that the credibility of Government spokesmen is of paramount importance in international affairs, will the Leader of the House explain why those spokesmen denied the existence of a document which recorded that Mr. Kamal Hussein had stated that the Iraqi Government had not, in fact, acted as he had earlier described in relation to the creation of weapons of mass destruction? Why was the existence of that document denied by Government spokesmen, and how did it subsequently come into the possession of Newsweek?
Mr. Cook: As I understand it, the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a statement by Rolf Ekeus, the former weapons inspector in Iraq, who gave his verdict on interviews with Kamal Hussein. I personally am not familiar with the idea of any Government spokesman having denied the existence of that document, nor would it be within our power to confirm or deny what is in the United Nations weapons inspectors' records. If the hon. Gentleman would like to clarify precisely to what he is referring, I shall certainly make the necessary inquiries.
Bob Spink: Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), the Government gave advice to the public on Monday that they should go to their family doctor to ask for a smallpox vaccination if they wanted one. Is the Leader of the House aware that the British Medical Association and the GPs giving evidence yesterday to the Science and Technology Committee said that they had not been consulted in any way on this matter, that the advice was downright dangerous, that the GPs would not be able to respond to it and that the Government should withdraw it immediately? Will he ensure that the Home Secretary comes to the House, clarifies the matter to the public and apologises?
Mr. Cook: I can certainly confirm that the Department of Health has repeatedly provided advice on that matter. Of course, the hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point in saying that the smallpox vaccination carries a risk of side effects, so it is important that it be used only in circumstances in which the risk of infection is greater than that of side effects. That is why the plans of the Department of Health and the Government for

973
dealing with any smallpox outbreak involve vaccination of those who would be most at risk, rather than general vaccination. It is very important that we keep the matter in proportion and do not unnecessarily alarm our constituents, so I repeat that we are not aware at present of any specific threat of a smallpox attack on Britain.
Mr. Bercow: Can we have an early debate on the Floor of the House on the iniquitous impact of the Government's so-called fairer charging policy for the receipt of home care services? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that such a debate would enable us to show how the Chancellor of the Exchequer has broken a seven and a half year old pledge to end the means test for our elderly people, how the policy reflects the appalling financial mistreatment of the shire counties, and how the cumulative impact of those errors of judgment and that malice on the part of the Government will cause some of my constituents to pay 200, 300 and 400 per cent. more than they currently do for services on which they critically depend?
Mr. Cook: It has of course been a longstanding practice of many local authorities to provide some form of charging for home care services, and it is often means tested. One of the great dilemmas for a Government—the hon. Gentleman will have to wrestle with it in any unlikely future event of his finding himself on the Treasury Bench—is to what extent we try to achieve harmony in the practice of local authorities. There has been some resentment throughout the country about the extent to which there has been wide variation. The Government's current proposal is intended to achieve a degree of common standards and a common approach among local authorities. While some might lose out—I hear what he says about his constituency—there will be other cases in which residents and constituents will benefit from the scheme and in which the application of a fair and consistent national minimum standard will benefit those most in need of care.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a debate in due course on the compulsory funding of the BBC as a public service broadcaster, given that such a debate would enable us to explore the mentality of the official BBC spokesman? That spokesman said that the BBC's new series on Cambridge spies was
"the first time that they can be seen to be heroic because it's post-Cold War"
974
and made this statement:
"In 'Cambridge Spies', we see and understand why it was that these young men were so implacably opposed to fascism and how communism was the only legitimate response".
What possible relationship can there be between the concept of compulsory levies, public service broadcasting and such an utter perversion of liberal values and the historical record?
Mr. Cook: One of the commendable ingenuities of the hon. Gentleman is that he always manages to find a way of making his point without my having to arrange a debate. He has just done so again. I fully concur with him in the sentiment behind his point—there is nothing heroic in being a traitor. I think that the whole House would agree.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: In reply to questions asked by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman said that the dodgy dossier did not matter. I can tell him a reason why it does matter. Hundreds of aircrew and ground crew personnel are being deployed from RAF Marham in west Norfolk to the Gulf. Surely they need to trust the Government and believe them when they are making their case for the war. Will he now answer my right hon. Friend's question?
Mr. Cook: I would be very surprised if a single airman or serviceman who is preparing for what may be military conflict in the Gulf is currently sitting over his cocoa debating which Minister cleared the Government dossier. If the hon. Gentleman would like to find me a single person who has written to him expressing concern about that point, I would be interested to hear about it. Of course, what servicemen want to know is where the Opposition stand on the major question as to whether military conflict would be correct.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
London Development Agency Act 2003
Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure 2003
Church of England (Pensions) Measure 2003

Point of Order
1.25 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and assistance concerning the performance of the Home Office. I have with me three files, on two of which a response has been outstanding from the Home Office since 5 November last year. More importantly, I wrote on 21 January 2002 to the Home Office on behalf of a constituent who was concerned about the time that it was taking her to obtain her British passport. I received an acknowledgement card some three days later. I have since written three further letters, on 7 May and 3 September last year and 17 January this year, and I still have not received a substantive answer from the Home Office, which means that I do not know the present status of the case. More importantly, my constituent expects to be able to travel and does not have her British passport.
How can hon. Members in this place fulfil their duties to their constituents if a Department is taking so long to reply to correspondence? I appeal to you in desperation, Mr. Speaker: what can a Member in this place do, and how can we stop people's lives being disrupted by the lack of performance of Home Office Ministers?
Mr. Speaker: Ministers should answer hon. Members timeously.
Mr. Eric Forth: But they do not.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady sends the details of the cases to me, I shall investigate the matter. I also point out that there is a Select Committee on Public Administration and that she should also take her complaint there.

International Women's Day
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
1.27 pm
The Minister for Women(Ms Patricia Hewitt): I am delighted that international women's day has been selected as the topic for today's debate.
It is 100 years since Emmeline Pankhurst formed the Women's Social and Political Union. Earlier today, I launched the Royal Mint's new 50 pence coin commemorating that anniversary. Emmeline once said:
"We are here not because we are law breakers, we are here in our efforts to become law makers."
Since women won the vote, only 252 women law makers have been elected to this House and only 18 women have served in Cabinet in all those years. I am proud to be one of those women and grateful for this opportunity to pay tribute to Emmeline Pankhurst and all her fellow suffragettes who fought outside this House for political, economic and social justice. I am glad that the whole House will join me in honouring her achievements.
This Saturday, millions of people around the world will take part in events to mark international women's day. I have no doubt that many of them will again take the opportunity to express their deep concerns about the possibility of war in Iraq. All of us hate the idea of war. As we know from every test of public opinion, women are even more likely when faced with the horrors that war inevitably brings to prefer a peaceful route, but I have no doubt that it is only the threat of war that has persuaded Saddam Hussein after 12 years of defying the United Nations to allow the inspectors back in and offer a few inadequate gestures of co-operation. Even now, Saddam can put a stop to the possibility of war by cooperating fully with resolution 1441, which was passed unanimously by the Security Council.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In endorsing what the right hon. Lady says, may I remind her that there is also a long and very honourable tradition of women playing heroic parts in the wars that have had to be fought throughout the 20th century in order to preserve the freedoms that they were fighting to win when they fought for the vote?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Many of us have female, as well as male relatives who played their part in both world wars in particular.
We know, from every test of public opinion, that women are even more likely to prefer that peaceful route. Even now, Saddam can put a stop to the possibility of war. Of course conciliation would be better than war, but let us not confuse conciliation with appeasement, or muddle our rational fear of war with irrational trust in Saddam after all that 12 years' bitter experience has taught. That experience has been bitter indeed for millions of Iraqi women who have watched their children die in poverty. Their sons and husbands have been tortured and executed. Women themselves have been brutalised by professional rapists. In last week's debate in this House, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) gave her own moving account of the sufferings of the families whom she met on her recent visit to northern Iraq.

977
Our armed forces fought in Kosovo to end the horror of ethnic cleansing and a conflict in which rape was deployed as a deliberate weapon of war. Millions of women and men are now rebuilding their lives and their country. We fought in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and international terrorism, and, with the removal of the Taliban that followed, girls are now back in school for the first time in more than a decade. I recently had the privilege of meeting Habiba Sorabi, the Minister for Women in the new Afghan Administration, who, with her colleagues, is helping to rebuild that country. If we do fight in Iraq, it will be to uphold international law and to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, but the defeat of Saddam will also be the liberation of the women of Iraq.
Just as we work internationally against genocide, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, so we work internationally to combat poverty and disease. Today, at a time of immense political uncertainty and of economic slowdown, it is doubly important that we renew our efforts for trade and development. If we are to build a lasting international coalition for disarmament and security, we must build an equally powerful international economic coalition, because we will never deal with terrorism and other threats to world peace if we do not also deal with the hunger, misery and frustration across the developing world and in refugee camps. More than 1 billion men, women and children in our world are without adequate food, water, sanitation, health care or education; 70 per cent. of them are women. Forty-two million people in the world have HIV/AIDS, 60 per cent. of whom are women, and women are the fastest growing group of sufferers. More than 0.5 million women die in pregnancy and childbirth every year, half of them in sub-Saharan Africa. No wonder Kofi Annan said
"Poverty has a woman's face".
I have no doubt at all that if we can create a system of world trade that is fair as well as free, we will empower some of the poorest women in the poorest countries of the world. That is the experience of women in Bangladeshi villages who are supported by the Brahmin bank and by their Government in creating new enterprises. That is the experience of the women whom I met earlier this year in Nong Ta Kai village in northeast Thailand. Years ago, they worked in rice fields, their only hope of escape from poverty to flee to the city, where they were vulnerable to exploitation and to prostitution. Now, they have come together, like so many other women in Thailand, to create their own silk-weaving co-operative. They used to live in old wooden shacks—I saw some that were still there. Today, they are used for storage, because next to them are the modern two-storey houses that those women have paid for with the earnings from their own work and from their ownership of that co-operative.
So the opportunity is there—above all, because in November 2001 we launched the Doha development round. We—the 142 countries in the World Trade Organisation—launched it because we know that if we could just halve protectionism around the world against agricultural and industrial goods and services, we would boost developing country incomes by about $150 billion a year: three times the value of all the aid budgets put
978
together. Substantial trade liberalisation could reduce the number of people living in poverty by more than 300 million by 2015—a big contribution to reaching the
millennium development goals. But progress on the Doha negotiations is far too slow. That is why I appeal again to President Bush and the American Administration to join with the developing countries and the European Union in the compromise agreement on access to medicines that we came so close to finalising just before Christmas. And it is why I yesterday met my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for International Development to ensure that we redouble our efforts to secure reform of the common agricultural policy, to open our markets and to end the agricultural subsidies that lock poor world farmers into poverty, and thus to move forward on the WTO negotiations.
We will continue to work internationally on human rights and women's empowerment. My officials are currently attending the 47th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. I am delighted, too, that the Government are supporting UNIFEM, the United Nations Development Fund for Women, an organisation dedicated to strengthening women's economic security and political participation, and that that organisation, with our financial support, will now be launched in London.
We know that the struggle of women in the developing world is on a wholly different scale from the challenges that we face in our own country. We have come a very long way in the past century, but there is still a long way to go before we can say that we live in a truly just and equal society. When the first international women's day was held in 1911, women in Britain were fewer than three in 10 of the work force; today, we are nearly half. However, only one in four managers is a woman, only one in 10 directors is a woman and there is only one woman chief executive in the FTSE 100. In 1911, the pay gap between British men and women was around 55 per cent.; today it is 19 per cent., but that is still 19 per cent. higher than it should be. In 1911, Oxford and Cambridge would not even grant degrees to women; today, women are more than half our full-time undergraduates. However, 50,000 women with science, engineering and technology degrees—women whose skills are urgently needed in our economy, particularly in manufacturing industry—are not in employment at all.
We know what the problems are and we know what needs to be done. We know, for instance, that we need to make it far easier for women and for men to balance work and family life. Look at the changes that have taken place. Families have been transformed. In place of the family based on the male breadwinner and the woman at home that so many of us grew up with, there are many more two-job families and many more lone parents. The workplace is changing, as well—it is no longer based on nine-to-five, five days a week. New consumer demands and growing competitive pressures require ever more organisations to be far more flexible in how they employ their people.
The best employers know that working time reform is not a burden forced on them by Government, but an opportunity to be far more successful. Last week, I presented the awards for the Sunday Times-DTI 100 best companies to work for, including Microsoft,

979
Honda UK, Asda, Tesco, the Scotch whisky company Glenmorangie, Kimberly-Clark, Richer Sounds and many others. Those are companies that consistently outperform the FTSE index and have found that the more choice they give their people about working hours, the more satisfied are their staff and the less problem they have with recruitment and retention, so they are all the more productive, profitable and successful.
Not only women but men want that choice in their working hours. According to a recent survey by the Equal Opportunities Commission, men are responsible for one in three child-care hours. The younger generation of fathers wants the chance to spend more time with the children. Younger fathers want to be more active in their children's lives than perhaps their fathers were in theirs. Given the opportunity, half of all men would work flexitime. The demand and the challenge therefore exist. However, if we left such changes to voluntary action and the pace of cultural change, unsupported by Government, the process would take too long. Parents cannot afford to wait.
In April we will introduce a new package of support—the largest ever—for parents. It includes not only the new child tax credit but rights for people in employment. They are: providing better maternity pay up to £100 a week; increasing the amount of maternity leave that a new mother can take up to a year; giving fathers the right for the first time to two weeks' paid paternity leave, which will benefit more than a third of a million fathers every year; giving adoptive parents, who have been left out in the past, equivalent rights, and granting all parents who work and have a child under six, or a child with disabilities under 18, the right to negotiate flexible working arrangements with their employers.
The new package of rights was agreed with the TUC, the Confederation of British Industry and many small businesses. We have great confidence that it will work. With the help of trade unions, business organisations and women and family groups throughout the country, we can ensure that every parent knows about the support that is available. We do not provide it out of sentimentality or because we are trying to tell parents how to do their job. We know that parents need and deserve far greater support from Government in balancing the two great responsibilities of earning a living and bringing up children.
Of course, there is far more to do to ensure that women can play their full role in the economy. Earlier, I referred to women in science, and I am especially grateful to Baroness Greenfield for her excellent review of women's participation in science, engineering and technology. I am delighted by our success in recruiting women and men, but especially women, to the science and engineering ambassadors programme. It will put more people into schools to inspire girls and young women to follow a scientific and engineering path. As we celebrate the anniversary this year of the discovery of DNA, the Rosalind Franklin award honours the achievements of a woman whose contribution to cracking the DNA code has been overlooked too often.
We need to do more to improve opportunities for women not only at the bottom but at the top of business. The report by Derek Higgs that I published recently shows that more than half of all directors of listed companies are appointed through personal contacts and friendships. That old boys' network is not an adequate
980
way in which to ensure the highest standards of corporate governance and the best available talent. Derek Higgs suggested several methods of making the process more meritocratic through an open, fair and rigorous appointments procedure. I am delighted that Laura Tyson is considering the way in which we can progress on that. I look forward to receiving her recommendations.
In our global economy, the war for talent is real. Our businesses, public services and our country will not succeed unless we use all the talent of all our people—women as well as men from every part and community of our country.
We need to do far more to ensure that women play a full part in public life. We have changed the law to make it much easier for women to stand for election. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about the way in which she will overcome the problem of male resistance in the Conservative party. I do not say that in a partisan spirit because, as many of my hon. Friends know, we have been through the same battles in the Labour party.
Mr. John Bercow: The right hon. Lady's challenge is fair and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) will respond to it with characteristic vigour and precision. However, the evidence that I have adduced from the Equal Opportunities Commission shows that the phenomenon of prejudice against selecting female candidates is principally a matter not of male opposition but of older people. There is an age factor and older people, both men and women, are prejudiced whether they know it or not. We must all counter that.
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I believe that he regrets his party's difficulty in recruiting younger members. However, we all face such challenges; we have set ourselves a challenge in government of recruiting 50 per cent. women for all public appointments by 2005.
Ms Dari Taylor: I listened to my right hon. Friend's response to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) with interest. However, there are also structural problems of image, tradition and belief. It is not simply a problem of age or gender. Many young women simply do not believe that any of us take them seriously and they are therefore not prepared to take us seriously.
Ms Hewitt: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a serious problem of political disengagement and a sense that party politics and parliamentary democracy do not speak for most people. That is precisely why I am so passionately committed to ensuring that we have more women, more younger Members and more Members from our black and Asian British communities. We need to ensure that Parliament looks like our country and can therefore speak for our country.
Glenda Jackson: It is simply not enough for Parliament to look like this country; we must also listen to the country. Yesterday provided a marked example of not only Parliament's but the Government's failure to listen. A mass lobby of

981
school children who deeply opposed war against Iraq took place. They were remarkably well informed and they did not simply treat the event as a day off school. They made a clear political comment. Until we begin to take such matters seriously, it does not matter how much we look like the country. If we do not listen to it, we take no step forward.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right that we must listen. We must engage in all seriousness, as we have done in the House, with people who are passionately committed to peace. We need to argue our case, as I did earlier this afternoon. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done so much to make the case in person, on television, through meeting young people at No. 10 and so on. He has done that precisely in order to listen, engage with the argument and lead.
Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Lady's passion is visibly overflowing. We hear her mellifluous tones and the content of her speech with interest and respect—but I am desperate that she should move on to the subject of child care. What assessment has she made of the effect of the rigidities of the planning process and the nature of the Ofsted inspection regime on the availability of high-quality and affordable child care?
Ms Hewitt: We have made real improvements over the past five years but not enough. When I met women members of regional development agency boards yesterday, planning was specifically raised. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is already taking steps to reform and speed up the planning regime. As to Ofsted, in my own discussions with child care providers and in the review published recently by my noble Friend Lady Ashton, setting quality standards was not found to be a particular barrier to the development of child care services. There are undoubtedly other barriers. I welcome that direct provision and child care tax credit have begun to make a real difference but I am the first to say that a good deal more needs to be done.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Only this week I learnt that a child care club in my constituency, which has been running for 16 years and has experienced staff, is in severe difficulties because of the requirement that staff who have been doing the job a long time must pass an examination. Such individuals do not want to sit an exam, when they probably know better than most of us in the Chamber how to look after small children. Will the right hon. Lady use her good offices to address that issue?
Ms Hewitt: I shall be happy to look at that point. There is a balance to be struck between offering existing child care workers good opportunities to improve and formalise their skills—and in doing so, providing them with further opportunities to progress in employment—and using common sense to make sure that we do not undermine the excellent work already being done. If the hon. Lady will write to me with the details of the play group concerned, I shall be happy to consider them.
982
When I met women RDA board members yesterday, I was struck by the fact that almost all of them would never have thought of putting themselves forward simply from reading a press advertisement. One after another said that she had applied because somebody had specifically asked her to do so. Over the past year, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and I have led a programme of visits and meetings around the country, bringing together thousands of women who might be tempted to enter public life. After hearing from women who had made that step, almost all the others said that they would put their names forward. An inspiring black woman speaker at one of the seminars said that her motto was "Lift as you rise". For those of us who have been honoured by election to this House, that is a good motto to remember as we encourage other women to step into public life.
A little more support from the media than is sometimes the case would be welcome. In the 1970s, when I was working on a campaign for a sex discrimination Bill, the BBC and ITN would not employ women newscasters on the ground that women's voices were too high and nobody could possibly take news bulletins seriously if they were read by women. That was changed but even today, as a recent survey showed, there is only one woman newscaster for every three men—so there is still more to be done.
Rob Marris: My right hon. Friend has been speaking about women in public life but perhaps she will outline the Government's proposals to tackle the fundamental scourge of domestic violence, which by its nature is usually hidden behind closed doors—and tends to repeat from generation unto generation, particularly among boys who grow up in that unacceptable environment.
Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is working closely with other colleagues in the Government—including my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General—to ensure that far more is done to end the scourge of domestic violence. As my hon. Friend says, that crime mainly takes place in private but leads to the death of one woman every three days. That is the scale of the problem faced in Britain. By getting the police and prosecution services working more closely and effectively together, supporting a help line and investing in refuges, we are doing a great deal to help women and their children to escape abuse.
We have come a long way since the Women's Social and Political Union was formed but as Emmeline Pankhurst said, "deeds not words" count. Our deeds include the minimum wage, which has helped 1 million or so women on low pay; new rights for mothers and fathers; children's tax credit; and the national child care strategy. But as all right hon. and hon. Members readily recognise, there is a great deal more to do. All of us, whatever our differences over the means that should be employed, share the same vision and a commitment to making Britain and the world a better, safer and fairer place for us all.
1.57 pm
Mrs. Theresa May: I apologise to the House for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the shadow Minister for Women, who is on a fact-finding mission in Sudan, Kenya and Malawi. Her absence gives me the opportunity to participate in this valuable debate and I look forward to contributions on many issues concerning the position and role of women in the world today.
What is international women's day and what should it represent—an opportunity to celebrate all that is good and unique about the female sex and its achievements or a chance to highlight the inequalities that hamper women around the world? Superficially, nearly 100 years after the establishment of international women's day, many of the movement's original aims have been achieved, including the vote; equal education; equal pay and conditions—at any rate, in the eyes of the law; and acceptance that a woman is an independent soul who does not have to be the shackled property of her family or husband. Such advances should not be forgotten or belittled.
In far too many parts of the world, those rights are still denied to women. International women's day still has an important campaigning role, but if it is to remain relevant in a new century with new challenges, perhaps a less narrowly focused raison d'etre is required. Women today think more about the security of their streets; the quality of education; the robustness of their pension; the effectiveness of medical care; and local transport. Such issues are uppermost in the minds of women and cannot be confronted or resolved by statistical targets and equality legislation alone.
The Minister set great store by the changes that the Government have introduced, but the approach is all too often based on targets and regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was right to raise the issue of child care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) pointed out, the Government's regulatory approach often reduces rather than encourages opportunities for child care provision. Some 59 per cent. of women do not feel that there is adequate child care provision in England. Improving access to child care would help many women to return to work much more quickly, and fewer might be passed over for senior posts that should have been theirs by right.
What is needed is a coherent strategy to make it easier for women to obtain employment, to secure good, affordable child care, and to resume work if they have chosen to take time off to look after children. That would enable women's participation at higher levels of society to continue rather than stagnating, as it sadly shows every sign of doing. Before 1997, just over 25 per cent. of self-employed workers were women—an 88 per cent. increase since 1981—but the rate of increase has now slowed to a crawl. Between 1991 and 1995 the proportion of public appointments held by women rose from 23 per cent. to 30 per cent., but it has not risen since. During the years of the Conservative Government the pay gap narrowed to 20 per cent.—the best result among the major European economies—but over the last five years it has narrowed by only a further 2 per cent.
984
The Minister made a number of references to the role of women in the House of Commons. I agree that we need more diversity in the House, and that we all have a role in encouraging women—and indeed others—to come here. As the Minister said, women in particular often seek encouragement to stand for Parliament, and to adopt other senior roles, rather than assuming—as do all too many young men—that such roles are theirs by
right.
The Government say that they want to improve women's status. The cause of women, however, is helped not by targets and rhetoric but by a stable economy, growing employment, business deregulation and the availability of choice and quality in our public services. One does not need to be a rocket scientist, even a female one, to work that out.
The things I have mentioned sound basic and they are basic, but let us not forget the difference that such basic things can mean. When 70 per cent. of those in the world who live on less than $1 a day are women, and when as many as one in 13 die in childbirth in some countries, what count are what we consider to be basic rights.
The Minister mentioned Afghanistan. We all know of the appalling treatment of women under the Taliban, and of the improvements now being made. It is crucial that the Government can send the girls to school, equalise access to health care and encourage female participation in the political process, but we know that beyond Kabul the burqa must still be worn, and that education and health care are still strictly limited. These are not western cultures and we must be wary of applying western attitudes, but international women's day and the many agencies that support it can make a difference. What is needed as much as a legislative shift is a cultural, or perhaps more accurately an emotional, shift in attitudes. That is needed from women as well as men, by which I mean that we must encourage women to believe in their own equality. Only such a shift in attitudes can ensure lasting and widespread change.
Ms Dari Taylor: The hon. Lady speaks with passion about attitude change, and I think that what has been said so far is absolutely right. The current view in the criminal justice system is that street crime is the most grievous crime that it must handle. There are 160,000 street crimes a year, but there are 290,000 crimes of domestic violence a year. We must tell those in the criminal justice system that they are wrong. It is high time there were more women, or at least more balanced people, acknowledging that problematic attitudes often arise within the system that constantly churns out such decisions.
Mrs. May: I agree that attitudes within a system often produce barriers preventing the progress that we want to make. Domestic violence is an important issue, and if the hon. Lady will bear with me I will deal with it specifically later.
Education is the key to the necessary change in attitudes. It teaches women about good health care, which in turn reduces the rate of infant mortality. Literate mothers are 50 per cent. more likely to immunise their children, and the risk of premature child death is reduced by 8 per cent. for each year that a mother has spent in primary school. Britain is

985
committed to the United Nations millennium goal of equal access to education for the sexes by 2005, but we are a long way short of that. In early April the Global Campaign for Education's week of action will highlight the problem, and try to energise Governments into making fresh efforts to reach that important target.
It is not just at primary level, however, that education can make a difference. Training and education at all levels can transform the futures of women in developing countries. The Minister gave a number of examples of the way in which working with women could improve their conditions and employability in various countries. Last year I visited a charity called Feed the Children, based in my constituency, which has had a significant success with its micro-finance strategy, teaching women's groups and helping them to found small businesses and reinvest the profits in the community. It gives small loans to the co-operatives, enabling them to expand their businesses. The loans are repaid at very low interest rates, and an extra amount is put into a savings account to which access is allowed at the end of the loan period. If a loan has been repaid, the group can apply for a larger loan, and the virtuous cycle continues.
That model has been running for more than 10 years, and operates on three continents. The key to its success lies in the training given to women to enable them to succeed. Rather than giving them money and expecting them to go away and make it work, Feed the Children offers support at every step along the road, training, teaching and encouraging. It believes in the women. As a result, repayment rates are outstanding. For example, in Sierra Leone, where Feed the Children has worked with a fishing business, the rate stands at 98 per cent. after three loan cycles. That is a country that was believed to be beyond such assistance. It is women who make the system work, because they understand the importance of reinvesting the savings in their children and the community.
The model has worked from Uganda to Guatemala, and has transcended cultural and economic differences of every hue. I am sad to report, however, that attempts to encourage a similar scheme in Afghanistan have come to nothing, because the eyes of the world no longer look on that country. The promises of aid given so fulsomely by world Governments have not yet borne fruit. We must not let the opportunity given to us by the bold action of the coalition against terror slip away in bureaucratic wrangling. We have a responsibility to the women of Afghanistan not to let that happen. The nations that promised aid should deliver it quickly, or a final chance to rescue Afghanistan will have been lost. Charities such as Feed the Children show that with the right training and with adequate, well-targeted funds, women can lead the way in rebuilding shattered communities and societies.
It is through education that the barriers to female inequality can be challenged throughout the world. The lack of education to prevent the spread of sexual disease, for example, is possibly the most pressing problem in sub-Saharan Africa—the Minister mentioned this—where teenage girls are five times more likely than boys to be infected. Last year 1.3 million women died of HIV/AIDS, and some older women are looking after as many as 40 orphaned grandchildren. Education is also vital to
986
the prevention of violence against women—not just abroad, as I shall explain shortly. Genital mutilation, human trafficking and prostitution are just some of the horrors facing girls and women in developing countries. They cannot be dealt with only through aid, although aid is needed; they cannot be dealt with by legislation, although legislation can help. It is through a programme of education—education of both sexes—that women's freedom will be attained.
For too long we have concentrated on pure statistics as a barometer of progress, perhaps at the expense of the wider role that women fulfil as workers, carers, mothers and volunteers. Is that incredible diversity to be denigrated because it does not improve official statistics on equality? Might that narrow focus be preventing us from tackling more important issues, such as the crisis in pension provision or the shocking statistics on domestic violence, to which the hon. Members for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) referred? One in four women suffers from domestic violence. On average, a woman suffers 35 attacks before she goes to the police; 50,000 women and children seek sanctuary from domestic abuse every week. Most worrying of all, two women and two children die every week at the hands of a partner or former partner.
We welcome the forthcoming Green Paper on domestic violence and look forward to working constructively with the Government on the issue. However, although we welcome legislation, it must be recognised that domestic violence will be truly defeated only when attitudes are changed. Sadly, 20 per cent. of young men, and even 10 per cent. of young women, still think that abuse or violence against a partner is acceptable. The campaign to end drink driving shows that legislation alone does not produce results. Only when a younger generation of drivers came through, who believed that drink driving was unacceptable, did the problem begin to be rolled back.
Indeed, the drink driving campaign inspired my party's domestic violence posters last Christmas, which were supported by the Police Federation and Women's Aid and endorsed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. We wholeheartedly welcomed the recent BBC "Hitting Home" project, which really brought home to people the nature of the problem of domestic violence and its prevalence, sadly, for all too many women. Many women in this country live in dangerous and vulnerable situations and we must help them.
It is also true that what might be described as the "machinery of government"—the system—is still not always as responsive as it should be to the needs of women. The benefits system remains too complicated; women are often unsure about what they are entitled to and for what they can claim. Pensions, too, are complicated and make no allowance for the many women who are carers. Women live longer than men; the majority of pensioners are female, yet too many women do not have enough on which to live comfortably.
The efforts of the past 100 years to improve female equality have achieved notable success—indeed, I should not be standing here if they had not. To continue our progress, however, we need to find a new language and a new mindset or understanding of what constitutes

987
equality" in the 21st century. We need a modernisation of our intellectual response to old arguments about equality and progress.
I pose this question for everybody. Let us say that we all woke up tomorrow and found that women had equal representation in all walks of life and that all pay differentials had genuinely disappeared: would that remove the need for an international women's day? I suggest that it would not.
Equality under the law, equality in business and politics, and equality of opportunity are all important and vital; but it is in equality of the mind that the changes really matter. We need equalities of attitude and the acceptance that everyone's choice is equal and that statistics alone do not produce an equal society. That is the challenge facing the future of international women's day; it is a challenge that faces us all.
2.13 pm
Valerie Davey: I welcome this debate and the opening contribution to it by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women. On this day and in this year, I want to pay tribute to the courage, professionalism and sheer hard work of women Members of Parliament in Tanzania, whom I had the privilege of meeting last month. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Muleba, North, Ruth Msafiri, who took me to her constituency and showed me the work that she had been doing. Last week, even The Guardian referred to me as a hard-working constituency MP, so that must be right. I would have agreed until I experienced the work of the honourable Ruthie, as she is known in her constituency, and realised that I actually have time to sleep. I cannot believe that the honourable Ruthie can get through as much as she does and find enough time to sleep.
Since 1999, the British Council in east and central Africa has run a programme to support and encourage women in politics. I pay tribute to the council for its incredibly good work in increasing the number of women in effective leadership. The project, which is entitled "Just Big Cars and Leaky Roofs?", involves a work-shadowing exchange in which 14 women from seven east and central African countries and 14 women from throughout the United Kingdom took part. The aim is to ensure that more women are involved in politics, and that they begin to appreciate the nature of the role of a Member of Parliament and how they can encourage more women to enter politics in order to improve the lifestyle of women in those countries.
The programme's title arose from research in east and central Africa which concluded that most electors thought of their MPs only in terms of big cars and that MPs visiting their constituencies felt that the only demand made of them was to improve leaky roofs. The title thus encapsulates the results of the British Council survey.
It was a salutary experience for me to sit in the Gallery of the Parliament in Dodoma. Looking down, I was enthralled to see a wonderful red semicircle. People addressed the Speaker, who sat high above them—even higher than you, Madam Deputy Speaker—well above contradiction. Three clerks sat below the Speaker. The mace may not have been as lavish as ours, but it was carried in with as much dignity. I was delighted to find
988
that there was no second Chamber. Of the 282 Members of Parliament, 61—or 21 per cent.—are women. However, unlike our system, only 12 of those women Members, including the honourable Ruthie, are elected. The others hold special seats and two are presidential appointees. The British Council is anxious, as I am, that more women should be elected, but before we criticise that system we should understand the situation in which it developed.
The Tanzanian Government are committed to getting more women into Parliament and, because they realise that there is hostility to women who put themselves forward, they have ensured that there are appointed places for women. Those women are now looking for elected seats so that they will be fully accountable, as they see it, to their electorates.
The work undertaken by those women is impressive. Although I was not able to follow in Swahili the debates and question time that I was privileged to watch, their body language—their great dignity and confidence—was evident. A woman Minister answered questions and a woman deputy Minister and other women contributed to the debate.
An all-party women's group invited me to a question and answer session. They wanted to know how we planned to meet the 30 per cent. Beijing target for women on elected bodies, especially Parliament, by 2005. They know how they will do so. They will have as many elected women as possible, topped up with appointed Members, so that at the 2005 election they will have reached the 30 per cent. target.
Mr. Robert Key: Is that Labour party policy?
Valerie Davey: It is an increasingly interesting prospect. I could give the all-party group no clear answer on how we would reach 30 per cent. I explained the Labour party's approach, which is that there will be all-women shortlists as seats become available. They were impressed, but the question came back: "Will that get you to 30 per cent?"
Ms Dari Taylor: No.
Valerie Davey: I had to admit that it probably would not do so.
Those appointed women are doing some remarkable things. We have already talked about HIV/AIDS, and one of them chairs a huge committee on the subject that is in touch with our all-party group on AIDS and has other international links. Another Tanzanian woman MP was in the UK last week, taking part in the Red Crescent and Red Cross meeting at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. These women are impressive and their work is distinguished. They have no offices and the Assembly is bereft of equipment, although the British Council has provided a suite of computers and the training to go with it, and is servicing those women—giving them the confidence and support to continue in a very professional manner.
That was just the beginning; I then made the five-hour drive back to Dar es Salaam, and I had to take two flights and a Land-Rover trip to get to Muleba, North—and a boat trip to get to some of the 19 islands in Lake

989
Victoria that the honourable Ruthie represents. Meeting the community groups was absolutely fascinating. When the honourable Ruthie turns up, people suddenly emerge from everywhere; they want to know about the next stage of the project that they are undertaking. Local community groups, often with strong women leaders, come forward and tell her, "We have done this. Here is part of the primary school. Here is a whole load of rocks—it is the beginning of our dispensary. What is going to happen next?" All the community leaders, including schoolteachers, come forward to present their reports. They read them out very respectfully, and ceremoniously put them into envelopes and hand them over. All the people and the crowds are very—respectful I have not seen a political meeting like it. Even in the evening in the pitch dark, 600 or 700 people gradually came round to listen respectfully.
The most moving thing was the pile of stones for the dispensary, and the leader of community coming forward to say, "A boy died in this village yesterday, but we decided that we should not postpone this meeting with our MP coming and our distinguished white visitor because our community has never had such a visit from a white visitor, and it is some time since the honourable Ruthie came. We decided that this would be a blessing, a turning point, and we look forward with you to establishing this dispensary." We left after a long meeting with music, dance and festivity and visited the home of the boy who had died. That was one of the most moving parts of an incredible visit.
We packed into three or four days more constituency work than many Members would get through in a month or even three months. People came to listen and to share, and they were not always given the answer that Members might expect to be given. We went to a road and were told, "Yes, thank you very much. We bought the materials, but they have all been stolen." Whereupon, with complete calm and dignity, the honourable Ruthie faced a crowd of 200 to 300 people and said, "Then you will not get another Tanzanian shilling until those people have been brought to court and the materials are returned." I wonder how many of us, on the spur of the moment and given such a difficult situation, would have had the courage to stand up in front of all those older people and, with complete aplomb, give that verdict—but she did.
One of the issues that arose from the British Council's survey was that women Members of Parliament are recognised in east and central Africa as no more or less efficient than men, but they are less likely to be corrupt and are more concerned for their local communities. Again, I pay tribute to the British Council for all the work that it is doing.
Hon. Members will realise that I could go on speaking for the rest of the debate, but I hesitate to do so because I know how many more want to contribute. Let me just say that I recognised something from that hands-on experience that I would never have found out without going on that return visit: Ruth Msafiri had been sitting in the Gallery last year.
We talk about the need for infrastructure, and of course those people need roads. Just as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women said earlier, those
990
women's groups need markets for their craftwork and ways to get their work to them, but what I found to be essential to civil society—perhaps we do not highlight it as much—is training for magistrates. Yes, they will get the police officer to arrest the people who stole the materials, but they have not got enough magistrates to sit in local communities.
There are not enough people to teach book-keeping. In fact, some of the projects go wrong because of lack of basic book-keeping skills. Hon. Members may find this hard to believe, but librarians are also needed. I went to a small teacher-training college that runs two-year courses entirely to underpin the millennium project of providing universal primary school education in Tanzania. Those at the college have not got computers. I was not expecting that; I was hoping that I might make the link between Africa and computers.
What did I find? I was told, "We had a brilliant librarian. He was wonderful, but he died in 1977, and we haven't had another one since." I went into the library. The reading room was empty and the books on the shelves were not classified. The only people who take out books are the lecturers. Having looked along the shelves, I would not want many of the books to be taken out because they date back to the 1970s. A librarian is what that college actually needs. A VSO librarian, as opposed to a teacher or a lecturer, would send that college forward by leaps and bounds.
Legislation is being introduced thick and fast in the Tanzanian Parliament, but it needs people to draft it—I do not know whether we have any to spare. I returned determined that Bristol, West would make its contribution. I am sure that the education department at Bristol university will be able to offer some help. I do not believe that the people of Tanzania will spurn Bristol university; it will be only too welcome.
I shall also ensure that the women of the Bristol Labour party and any others willing to join us will set up, with the help of the honourable Ruthie, a credit union for the women in their many different local groups, just as the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has suggested. The honourable Ruthie is determined to set up an umbrella group—we will help her to do so—so that women's groups are empowered through their community. I am sure that those links will be maintained with my right honourable friend, Ruth Msafiri.
I want to end with a word to another Tanzanian woman, whom I met for the first time earlier. Her name is Elly Macha. She is now Dr. Elly Macha; she has just received a PhD at Leeds university. What is unique? Well, at the age of three, disease made her blind and her immediate family rejected her. She has come through a Lutheran school in Tanzania, and now through Leeds university. It is so appropriate that she heard my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women open this debate, as her thesis was on gender, disability and access to education in Tanzania.
2.27 pm
Sandra Gidley: I, too, welcome the fact that the Government have devoted parliamentary time to this subject, and I associate myself with the remarks about Emmeline Pankhurst. The moot point is whether she would have been a Conservative today and joined

991
the modern Conservative party, but perhaps I shall leave that for the summing up. We should use today's debate to discuss the range of subjects that are important to women.
The Minister for Women will forgive me if I say again that the regular 10- minute Question Time on women's issues offers too narrow a focus. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would agree that women's lives are about much more than public life, the pay gap, domestic violence and child care, important as those subjects are. Although I intend to start by talking about those subjects, I shall move on to the international picture because it is only right and proper that most of the debate should be about that.
Without further ado, I shall begin by examining the role of the Minister for Women. Sadly, it is a part-time role. I hope to make the case today that it should be full-time, and we need only to look at the record to see that that is necessary. Let us consider women in public life. I am sure that the Minister for Women is as disappointed as the rest of us that, sadly, the number of women in public life has increased by only 2 per cent. since 1997.
Some 1,328 women attended the seminars aimed at getting more women into public life—quite a lot—and I had hoped that that might have some impact by now, but I had not realised that January 2003 figures were based on the situation in March 2002, so the seminars have not had time to have an effect.
That prompts a number of questions. First, in this technological age I am not sure why it should take 10 months to compile a report. Secondly, it would be interesting if the Minister informed the House about any follow-up. Of those who attended the courses, 91 per cent. claimed that they would be more likely to apply for a public post. That would be brilliant if it were followed through. The Minister said that women need to be encouraged to do specific things. Since the seminars, has there been any follow-up with the women who attended to ensure that they are still keen and to direct them to bodies in which they could usefully have an input?
I have noticed that women do not want to be part of an organisation just for the sake of it—for a title and a CV. They want to feel that they are making a real input. Sometimes, they need a little persuading that their contribution is worthwhile.
The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I am following the hon. Lady's argument closely, in particular her words about positive action. What is the Liberal Democrat party's policy on positive action in its selection of women candidates?
Sandra Gidley: I knew that that question would come up, although I did not think that the Minister would ask it. My party debated the issue two years ago at conference, when it decided—conference decided, which is unusual in political parties these days, but our conference makes decisions that the party follows through—that it was important not to go down the route of positive discrimination. I disagreed and argued the opposite at the time. It would be foolish if I did not admit that. However, we decided to invest a lot of time in supporting, encouraging and mentoring women.
992
That is a long-term strategy. I do not think that it will deliver many more women Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament at the next election, as I have said on record, but the rewards will be reaped in the election after that. I will not go into detail about the strategy, but many women are being encouraged and will be poised to get those target seats in that subsequent election. As we are gaining all the time, I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that we will perhaps get more women MPs in that way.
I have put my efforts behind that strategy. Unless we are seen to follow it wholeheartedly, we will not know whether it works. However, there is another issue. Unfortunately, we find that we are trying to train women to perform like men, which is the wrong way to go about it. As one Labour Member said—I cannot remember which one—when we ask people to picture an MP, the image they perceive is male, middle-aged and middle-class. We have to break that mould. I welcome the Labour party's efforts in that regard, but they have not been enough to change hearts and minds. It is not that people are innately prejudiced, but they have to get over that hurdle. We need to make people more aware that more than one type of person can become a Member of Parliament.
On the report "Public Bodies 2002", in a recent parliamentary answer the Minister for Women stated
"We are determined to deliver on our aim that women should hold 45–50 per cent. of public appointments… by the end of 2005".—[Official Report, 31 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 946W.]
In a more recent answer, she said that she had no effective control over the matter and stated categorically that the responsibility for making those appointments lay with individual Ministers supported by their Departments, and that each Department set its own targets. Perhaps that explains the complete inconsistency between Departments and why some have targets that are less than aspirational.
The Department for International Development target for 2004 was
"to ensure that the percentage of appointments held by women currently 23.8% does not fall below 23% in subsequent years".
I think that the Minister will agree that that is a little disappointing, but it is even worse when one realises that in 2000 it had placed 27 per cent. of women in public appointments. Clearly, the Department is happy to go backwards.
On current trends only two Departments, the Scotland Office and the Cabinet Office, should reach the target of 50 per cent. of public appointments being women in time for a general election in 2005. Fewer women are now serving on a number of bodies than was the case in 2001. I could list them, but I will not.
Will the Minister look into that matter and encourage ministerial colleagues to set targets that are realistic but that have some element of ambition, and to have some sort of plan as to how they will achieve their goal, rather than merely laudable ambition? On the subject of ministerial colleagues, I must mention mainstreaming. There is little evidence that it is happening in any shape or form, which suggests that a radical overhaul of the women and equality unit is needed.
In the past year, I have asked a number of questions of Government Departments on the implementation of the Government's "better practice" agenda to mainstream

993
gender equality throughout Departments. I hate using such terms—they are such a management-speak mouthful but they are what we are lumbered with. Simply put, the responses highlight incompetence and shortcomings in a significant number of Departments, ranging from total failure to embrace gender mainstreaming to inadequate acceptance of its importance.
I asked each Department four questions, which were designed to test whether gender equality was being mainstreamed throughout government. I asked what new data series, broken down by gender, race, disability and age, had been commissioned by each Department since August 1997. I asked Departments to list the women's organisations that had been consulted over proposed legislation in various years and whether the responses had been published. I also asked if Departments had established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment and what progress had been achieved. Finally, I asked them to list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome had been put out to consultation or published.
I was surprised and disappointed by the results. Nine out of 15 Departments had failed to implement a gender-aware policy agenda to date. The Ministry of Defence, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Scotland Office and the Northern Ireland Office had neglected to conduct any gender impact assessments. The Wales Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had not seen the need to conduct any analyses of gender mainstreaming. Five Departments would not answer one or more of the questions. A number of them had not defined any baselines for policy appraisal so far.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that it is not all doom and gloom. The Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Trade and Industry are the top-ranking Departments in demonstrating concrete evidence of mainstreaming equality. If gender awareness is not seen as a significant priority by the women and equality unit, it is difficult to imagine who will take up the initiative. Despite vast increases in resource allocation, the unit is clearly not doing its job properly and has let fall by the wayside the very object of its existence.
Finally, on the Minister's specific area of responsibility, more than two weeks ago I tabled a parliamentary question asking what percentage of her time was devoted to her role as Minister for Women. Unfortunately, to date I have not received an answer. It would be useful and nice to receive one today, but I hope that she realises that I asked the question out of frustration rather than pure mischief.
Earlier, I mentioned the large number of female Members of Parliament elected at the 1997 election. Yes, they were Labour MPs and some of them have come in for some flak, much of which is undeserved. I am convinced that having a large body of women in this place has resulted in many of the Government's policies being more women friendly and taking into account aspects of family life that were not previously so much to the fore. For example, I am convinced that the paper
994
on domestic violence that is due to be published soon—it is the first paper on the subject to be published in the history of Parliament—would not have been produced had there not been so many women MPs willing and able to do their bit. I want a full-time Minister for Women to do more of that sort of thing and to ensure that other Departments come up with more policies that take the lives of women into account.
I place on record my congratulations to the Home Secretary. Last summer, I was invited to visit Cambodia to look into the problem of sex tourism, which involves many under-age girls. I was really shocked and horrified by what I saw. It was bad enough seeing young girls in brothel areas, but the extent of the problem was really brought home to me when I visited a shelter that tried to rehabilitate girls who had been rescued from brothels. One of those girls was eight years old, which is shocking by anybody's standards. At that stage, I decided that I would like to do something about it.
I mention the problem because, at the moment, people on the sex offenders register can travel abroad for less than eight days without registering with anybody. Police forces in those foreign countries are therefore completely unaware of the presence of such people. To me, that seemed completely wrong. I was pleasantly surprised by the Home Secretary's response: he said that he had been unaware of the problem, but that such people should not be allowed to go abroad at all. The statement published yesterday showed that he has taken the matter very seriously, and I want to put my thanks for that on the record.
It struck me when I was in Cambodia that the problems of women in other parts of the world are on a completely different scale to those that we perceive as problems in this country. Among the examples quoted by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) were micro-finance initiatives. I visited a World Vision initiative, and the people running it were clear that they much preferred giving money to women because women saw the necessity of re-investing in families. One particular woman to whom I talked wanted to buy a motorbike and a plank of wood, so that she could take chickens to market. That might not sound much, but it would make a big difference to her particular community. I welcome all those initiatives, and we should launch more of them.
I am a little disappointed, although I understand the need for it, that there is a move towards money being given to Governments on the basis of good governance. If that money is given to non-governmental organisations, however, it is often spent on the heart of the problem; if it is given to Governments, they may divert it for other purposes. Again, so many things are taken for granted in the UK. Among the other truly horrific things that I saw were families foraging for food on a rubbish dump. We understand that we should not eat food covered with flies, but such a basic understanding is lost on generations of children who do not have education or role models. Another project is designed to educate those children. Such initiatives are small but very worthy, and I hope that we will support them.
I was going to talk about public health but I have digressed on Cambodia. In a similar way to the Tanzania story, when one sees such things one is very affected by them. Although MPs sometimes come in for

995
criticism for visiting countries abroad, it is sometimes one of the best things that we can do to realise what a long way we have come, how lucky we are, and what we need to do to improve things in other countries, too.
I want to finish by talking about the important role that women play in post-conflict reconstruction in war-torn countries, and about war generally. The impact of war on women, and women's role in peacekeeping, are subjects that, sadly, have fairly recently come to notice on the international agenda, having traditionally been a non-subject. In October 2000, the UN Security Council passed resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. It underlines the vital role of women in conflict solution, and mandated a review of both the impact of conflict on women and their role in peace building. The resolution emphasises the importance of taking a gender perspective throughout, especially because of the adverse impact of conflict on women and girls.
The UN Secretary-General noted in his report on women, peace and security:
"Women and children are disproportionately targeted in contemporary armed conflicts and constitute the majority of all victims."
He noted that they
"also constitute the majority of the world's refugees and internally displaced persons."
On a global scale, the figures are huge, as women and children constitute some 80 per cent. of the world's estimated 34 million refugees and other displaced persons. Although generalisations should be made only tentatively, it is widely documented that women's experiences of conflict are striking similar around the world, despite the huge differences in cultures and the character of conflicts. Women are more vulnerable, less mobile and the first to feel the effects.
One of the most unpleasant aspects of that is sexual violence. Reports from armed conflicts around the globe document how soldiers and paramilitaries terrorise women with rape, sexual and other physical violence and harassment. Combatants and sympathisers have used rape as a weapon of war, pulling communities apart and forcing women and girls to flee their homes.
I want to digress slightly and pay tribute to the V-day campaign, which has done much to highlight this and many other aspects of violence against women. Anyone who has ever heard a performance of "My vagina was my village" cannot fail to have been forced to recognise the brutality of war and its effect on women. It is a worldwide problem, which has affected women from different areas such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina—the list goes on. Women in those countries have reported mutilation and all sorts of other horrors. In many cases, perpetrators first raped, and then killed their victims. In other cases, those who survive suffer psychological trauma, permanent physical injury, and frequently are left with a long- term health reminder in the form of a sexually transmitted disease such as HIV/AIDS.
Until recently, however, many viewed violence against women as an inevitable, if regrettable, consequence of war. That attitude effectively guaranteed immunity for perpetrators and silenced women who suffered gruesome sexual and physical abuses. Indeed, it surprised me to learn that the
996
recognition of rape as a war crime resulted from the war in Bosnia and was not officially internationally recognised until as recently as 1998. Since 1998, some success has been achieved, with a number of trials that have convicted certain individuals of rape, used as an instrument of genocide.
It is also pertinent to examine the post-conflict situations that face many women. Sadly, the end of war rarely signals the end of violations against women. In the post-conflict period, many women confront discrimination in reconstruction programmes. They also experience sexual and domestic violence in refugee camps, and violence when they attempt to return to their homes. It has recently been documented that, one year after the Taliban's fall, women and girls in Afghanistan still face severe restrictions and violations of their human rights. In many areas, Taliban officials have been replaced by warlords, police officers and local officials with similarly oppressive attitudes toward women. The Taliban's collapse at the end of 2001 gave hope that Afghan women and girls would soon enjoy greater rights and freedoms. Indeed, in November 2001, US Secretary of State Colin Powell stated:
"The recovery of Afghanistan must entail a restoration of the rights of Afghan women… The rights of women in Afghanistan will not be negotiable".
A year later, however, many in Afghanistan, particularly outside Kabul, believe life has not dramatically improved. I quote one woman from the Herat province:
"The leadership here is very bad for us. It is not much different than under the Taliban."
Women of all ethnicities in Afghanistan are still being restricted in their participation in public life. They continue to face serious threats to their physical safety, denying them the opportunity to exercise basic human rights and to participate fully and effectively in rebuilding their country. I quote from a recent Human Rights Watch report:
"Women and girls enjoy little freedom of movement in? Herat… They may not walk or ride in a car alone with a man who is not a close relative, even a taxi driver. A police task force now patrols Herat city, arresting men and women who are seen together and suspected of being unrelated or unmarried. Men are taken to jail; women and girls are taken to a hospital to undergo forced medical examinations to determine whether they have recently had sexual intercourse."
According to the same report:
"In Kabul, a reconfigured Vice and Virtue Squad (renamed 'Islamic Teaching') is now operating."
One of the problems is that, sometimes, things are done in the name of religion that are not necessarily in line with religious edicts.
The report continues:
"A team of some ninety women under the Ministry of Religious Affairs harasses women in Kabul's streets for 'un-islamic' behaviour, such as wearing makeup, and, in some instances, follows them home to castigate their parents or spouses."
I find it bizarre that in a country that needs to rebuild its infrastructure people worry about whether women wear make-up or not. The report also says:
"There have been reports of Schools for girls being attacked with rockets or set on fire in at least five provinces."
These examples of violent, oppressive and restrictive behaviour severely undermine the most fundamental rights of women and girls in many areas of Agfhanistan.

997
Women's participation in the reconstruction of their country is severely constrained, leaving little hope for their broader political participation in the future. The humanitarian aid and development programmes depend on women to determine what aid is needed and ensure that the aid reaches women and children and is not diverted. If women are involved in administering programmes, aid will reach the people for whom it is intended.
As of December 2002, the US and coalition military forces in Afghanistan are continuing to pursue a strategy of entrusting general security and policing to local forces. We need to have some input into that if we are to improve things. The international community has still to offer adequate resources to expand peacekeeping or even to provide decent police training throughout the country, even though most Afghans and diplomatic officials admit that those steps are a necessary precursor to reconstruction efforts. The recent decision by the British and US Governments to deploy additional troops outside Kabul to work on security and disarmament issues is welcome, but much more needs to be done to ensure that the stranglehold on power enjoyed by the warlords who rule most parts of Afghanistan is weakened.
In Iraq, the Gulf war a decade ago resulted in the destruction of a large number of public facilities such as electricity generation stations and water purification plant and sewage treatment works. The damage has led to a rapid decrease in the health of the nation. That has affected women particularly because they are the main domestic workers and they are responsible for collecting water. In a water shortage, their workload doubles and if they collect poor water, the incidence of diseases such as typhoid fever increases. That has a severe effect on life in the country.
In 10 years, child mortality in Iraq has gone from one of the lowest in the world to the highest. The rate for under-fives is now two and a half times what it was in 1989. Maternal mortality has doubled because women are not receiving obstetric care for complications during pregnancy and childbirth.
I have cited Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of the impact that conflict has on women. I do not know what situation we will find ourselves in in the next few weeks, but I urge the Minister to do all that she can to ensure that women in post-conflict situations are empowered because they provide a vital linchpin in the rehabilitation of a war-torn country.
2.53 pm
Mr. Ben ChapmanI am delighted to take part in the debate today in celebration of international women's day, the central theme of which, as has been admirably demonstrated, is achieving equal rights. Extending equality, tackling barriers to participation and allowing everyone to play their full part in the social and economic life of the nation have to be the central tenets of the Government's vision of a truly inclusive society in this country and in others. Naturally, I commend the Government on their efforts in that direction and welcome the forthcoming gender equality action plan and disability bill, which will be aimed at fashioning just such an inclusive society based on respect and opportunity for all.
998
In striving to achieve equality between the sexes, it is important that we should remember those members of society for whom legislation does not adequately cater. I welcome the Government's promised legislation on the rights of transsexuals. I commend all that has been said before, but perhaps particularly the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) about women in Tanzania. I worked there myself for four years, and I recognise the accuracy of all that she has said. So I think I can say, if I remember it rightly, "Asante sana ndugu", for raising that subject so tellingly.
I also endorse what has been said about domestic violence and the importance of addressing it. It was effectively addressed a couple of weeks ago in my constituency by a federation of women's organisations which held a conference on the subject in Heswall halls. The conference also dealt with what should be done about it, and an action plan is being proceeded with.
The first person who raised with me the problems of transsexuals is now a woman, so I am taking the opportunity of raising the issue in a debate on women, although, with the necessary changes, my comments also apply to the plight of transsexuals who are now men. The problems are different, but there is much read-across. The rights of transsexuals lag far behind those of any other minority group in this country. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 secured the legal basis of equality for women, but while similar rights for transsexuals were secured just four years ago there are still crucial gaps. It is sufficiently frustrating that three decades after achieving de jure equality, women do not enjoy in all aspects de facto equality. I sincerely hope that that precedent is not followed in the case of transsexuals. I hope that we can save our successors from having to debate these issues in a similar vein in 30 years.
Most of us are comfortable with our gender. It is not something that we think about on a daily or hourly basis, but a small minority in our society experience unending anxiety and prejudice as a result of their gender identity. Legal ambiguity and the inability to alter official documents can have a pervasive effect on the lives of transsexuals and restrain their freedom in the absence of any legal protection of their privacy. For example, a birth certificate is required when one obtains a driving licence, a passport, insurance or even a bus pass. I understand that full disclosure of one's history is also integral to the process of finding employment. Transsexuals are at present even prevented from maintaining their discretion and dignity in death, as death certificates use official gender records. In addition to such personal difficulties, transsexuals cannot marry, which brings with it the concomitant denial of rights to a partner's pension and property. I am open to correction, but I do not think transsexuals can foster or adopt. They can even have their parenthood of a child denied.
If a transsexual commits a criminal offence, the legal ambiguities surrounding them can result in their being sent to prison according to their official, rather than their assumed, identity and gender. Medication can be stopped during such incarceration, with potentially devastating physical and psychological side effects. It is perhaps, sadly, for this reason that transsexuals are one of the most law-abiding groups in society.
Sue DoughtyDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that transsexuals are often discouraged from seeking basic rights such as benefits or from dealing with officialdom in any way because the people with whom they have to deal often have a dreadful habit of starting with "he" then changing to "she", perhaps giggling on the telephone and saying, "I don't know what to do now." The huge humiliation that people have to endure who have gone through such emotional pain to get to where they are now means that they often give up rather than obtain the rights to which they are entitled.
Mr. ChapmanI agree entirely. Not only legislative change but societal change is needed to address the rights of transsexuals. We need to define those rights and to define how transsexuals' privacy can be protected so that they can participate and contribute to society in a normal way. I hope that that will be achieved in the forthcoming Bill from the Lord Chancellor's Department, which I hope will be introduced quickly.
To illustrate the plight of transsexuals, I want to discuss the plight of a brave constituent of mine, Miss Janie Kirkby—who not only gave her consent to being mentioned in this debate but actively encouraged it. She regards my outlining of her plight as a way of helping other transsexuals of both sexes.
Miss Kirkby was born a man and has been uncomfortable with her gender identity for most of her life. Having made the transition and become a woman, she has found that the discrimination that she suffers substantially inhibits a normal existence. She has been unable to find gainful employment and has had to fight for her benefits—an issue that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) raised. Being loth to subject herself to further prejudice, she has not been able to secure a passport or even a bus pass. Had she pressed the point on the bus pass, she would have found that, at least in Merseyside, we have equalised the age for bus pass issue. At 60, she could have got a bus pass, but she does not wish to go through the indignity of all that is necessary to secure it.
She has had experience of employment in cleaning and nursing and has repeatedly applied for jobs in both those areas. She has been rejected from approximately 300 posts in two years for various given reasons—often
as spurious as, for example, "The people here wouldn't like you." What has happened cannot be attributed solely to malfeasance of the part of the employers. In nursing, it is legally necessary to be either a man or a woman. As a transsexual, Miss Kirkby's acquired gender is not legally recognised. She is therefore wholly unable, legally, to be employed in that area. For other positions, there is no legal basis to prevent her employment, but she is still consistently rejected. In frustration, she has pursued employment tribunals. However, it is always difficult to prove the specific reason for which one failed to get a job. Needless to say, it is not made explicit.
Miss Kirkby is a classic example of someone who has not passively accepted her fate. She got on her bike and went searching endlessly for work. However, she has consistently been rejected because of her gender identity. As she rightly says:
"If I wasn't a transsexual, I would be employed now."
That is true.
1000
Now of pensionable age, rightly, as a woman, she still experiences many daily problems. She had to fight for a pension, although, thanks to the change in the rules, she received one at age 60. However, that sort of hardship is typical of the experience of the majority of transsexuals in this country. I urge the Government to fast-track legislation on this issue. I welcome proposals that would make possible marriage for transsexuals and formal recognition of their acquired gender—including the issuing of papers that are indistinguishable from birth certificates and that mention only the present gender. I would welcome any statement on the progress of such legislation. Legal precedent has been set in the cases of Iv. UK, Goodwin v. UK and Bellinger v. Bellinger. I urge the Government to act in accordance with those rulings in codifying transsexuals' rights and in recognising acquired gender roles as legally valid.
To feel that one has been born in the wrong gender is difficult for me to comprehend but it must be disturbing in the extreme. I cannot imagine the kind of emotional turmoil that would be necessary to persuade someone that they had been born in the wrong body and that they must change their sex. The liberation and joy of achieving one's right gender must be great—but perhaps not as great as the trauma that one will have suffered in the past and, to some extent for some people, will continue to suffer in future.
It behoves all of us to reduce the burden on transsexuals. As I said earlier, this issue must be addressed not only in legislation but in perceptions. Societal attitudes must change. When walking down the street can be dangerous and humiliating, it is not surprising that transsexuals become dysphoric and despondent. Transgender behaviour is a normal variation of the human condition and should be seen as such. It is not a disorder. A civilised society has a fundamental responsibility to adapt to the needs of all its members. Let us hope that the needs of transsexuals can be fully met, and soon.
3.5 pm
Miss Julie KirkbrideI begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on his explanation of the problems faced by transsexuals. I had not intended to discuss that matter today, as there are a number of other issues that I wish to raise.
As a Conservative M P, I ought to tackle one issue face on—my party's lamentable performance in attracting more Conservative female MPs to these Benches. I would dearly like to see that change. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has many engagements and duties, and sadly she is not here to listen to what I have to say. She had to leave a few moments ago but I am sure that she will read the Official Report and so be fully aware of my views. As party chairman, she will be interested in these matters. I congratulate her on being the first lady in the Conservative party to reach the position of party chairman. That is an achievement. It is sad that the Secretary of State is not here to hear me say that it was a shame that, in listing the achievements of women in politics, she failed to mention that we have had a lady Prime Minister—the Conservative Margaret Thatcher. That proves that there is not really a glass ceiling in politics if one is good enough.

1001
Nevertheless, my party's performance in attracting more women is not good enough. I suspect that I may not be among the majority on the Conservative Benches in saying this, but although my party has made some progress in attracting female candidates to seats that we hope to win from the Government at the next election, that progress has not been enough and I hope that we will embrace measures that the Government have put in place to require the selection of female candidates. I say that not because, as MP for Bromsgrove, I am here to represent women. That is not so. I am a woman but, as well as in women's issues, I am interested in men's issues and issues regarding elderly people, disabled people and people from ethnic minorities. Of course, we all are. I am also interested in people who did not vote for me; it is my constitutional duty to represent my constituents.
We are all aware that, as times change, Parliament must reflect the general public. If we look at these Benches, we should see the same eclectic group of people as we might see in work places, the pub, or while walking down the street. The public have to believe that we can understand their problems, having had some experience of them. They should not feel that we all come from one group in society and therefore ignore other groups. I hope that my party will make progress on this issue. I thought that some hon. Members might challenge me on this, so I wanted to make my position clear on the record and in front of my Whips.
I pay tribute to the British Council. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) had to say. I had the honour and pleasure of having a young MP from Kenya shadow me here in the House of Commons. Sadly, I have not yet been able to go to Kenya, although I would dearly love to do so and share some of the profound experiences that the hon. Member for Bristol, West has had in Tanzania and Malawi. That may be possible in future.
It was a pleasure to welcome Cecily Mbarire to the House of Commons, where she shared her experiences with me. Her experiences are particularly relevant to the debate, because Kenya is about to hold a constitutional conference in March. I hope that it will profoundly change the role of women in that country. I very much hope that the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women will pass on to the Foreign Office a message about the need to support changes that will bolster the position of women in Kenya.
Cecily was a complete delight and a tremendous advocate for her sex and her country. I hope that she does as well in Kenyan politics as her undoubted talents deserve. She has been formidable in representing the interests of women in Kenya. She had been a Member of Parliament for only a matter of months when she visited me a few weeks ago. She was the President's nominee for one of the few positions that he is allowed to fill in the Kenyan Parliament. She is determined that she will be elected in her own right as time progresses, and she hopes that the conference will lead to several changes being made to the constitution.
The first change that Cecily hopes will be made is to provide for a gradual progression to bolster the number of female Members of Parliament in Kenya. She takes a sensible approach that is modelled on the systems that
1002
are already in place in other African countries. A position in Parliament for a female MP is ring-fenced, in that certain seats must go to women. In a sense, they are appointed. After five years, the women are no longer allowed to stand for those seats but must stand for a fully elected post against whatever competition—it is usually a man—they might face. That is a good way of encouraging a natural process of increasing the representation of women. It gives them the chance to show that they add value and are linked to their constituents. Perhaps they work harder, and the evidence suggests that they are less corrupt than some of their male colleagues. Guaranteeing women a place in Parliament and then making them fight for it on an equal basis is an exciting and progressive approach. It is important that the Kenyan constitution be amended to allow this gradual process of change to the make-up of the Parliament to take place.
The next issue that Cecily would like addressed is domestic violence. We have heard much about the problems of domestic violence in the United Kingdom, where the figures are truly shocking. I do not know the figures for Kenya, but I fear that they are much worse. Cecily told me that a male Member of the Kenyan Parliament said in that Chamber that it was a man's right to chastise his wife in the same way as it was his right to chastise his child. Because women have the vote in Kenya, this shocking statement was related to the MP's constituents. Such were the efforts of Cecily and her female counterparts that I am delighted to say that he was not re-elected at the subsequent election. It is nice to see that, on occasions, people are suitably punished for their totally unacceptable views. Domestic violence is an enormously important issue to the women of Kenya. Their rights do not begin to match the rights of women in this country. I hope that the Minister will encourage the Foreign Office to press for the inclusion of that important issue in the forthcoming constitutional conference.
As the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) pointed out, we have come so far in this country that we can lose sight of the unfortunate position of women in other countries. It is truly shocking to realise that women in Kenya do not have property rights. They do not inherit the joint wealth of husband and wife when the husband dies. They are entitled to the kitchen implements—the pots, pans and spoons—but the rest does not go to them or to their daughters. It goes to their sons. Unless their sons are prepared to look after them, they face destitution in old age.
I hope that the Kenyan constitution will be rewritten to recognise the existence of female property rights. Cecily believes that that might create a sticking point, but it is important that women should be able to have a stake in society. As we have heard in other contributions, women are often much better at using property to bolster the family income. They invest it so as to secure a proper livelihood for the family. I very much wish Cecily, her colleagues and the male colleagues who agree with them about future progress well in the future negotiations. The conference will take place quite soon and, if I get the chance to meet her and her constituents, I hope that I will be able to join in the celebrations to mark the success of her agenda.

1003
Cecily also raised with me the issue of female genital mutilation. We have all heard about that, but she described what it really entails as we were driving to Bromsgrove. Although the practice is outlawed in Kenya, it is not outlawed across Africa. Sadly, it still continues. I should remind the House what the practice involves. Sometimes it involves force but, for cultural reasons, many pre-pubescent girls of nine or 10 are resigned to their fate. Although it is difficult to imagine, a razor is used to cut away the female sexual organs without the use of anaesthetic. There is a profound impact in terms of pain—some girls bleed to death in the process because their wounds do not heal—and other health issues ensue. For example, women who have had such wounds inflicted on them suffer sheer agony in childbirth. It is a horrible process.
I know that progress has been made, but having more women represented in the Parliaments of sub-Saharan Africa is important in beginning to change attitudes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead pointed out, it does not matter if we change the law if we do not also change attitudes. For example, Cecily told me of a young lady who had run away from home because she feared what would happen to her. Cecily's mother harboured her, but the young lady had to return to her village when she became pregnant. She had her baby but, after that, she was frogmarched out of the village and circumcised.
Ms Oona KingTortured.
Miss Kirkbride"Tortured" is the right word. The young lady was tortured because such practices are considered appropriate in that society and village. I asked Cecily why mothers could allow that to happen to their children and she said, "Because that's what happened to them and that's what they expect to happen." Hence the culture does not change. It is important that women's rights be represented in Parliaments in Kenya and in the other countries in Africa where such practices occur.
Mr. KeyI salute my hon. Friend for her courage in raising that issue. Is she aware that although female genital mutilation is illegal in this country, it is happening to hundreds of children from ethnic minority groups because it is not illegal for their parents to take them abroad to a country where it is legal, have the beastly process carried out and then bring them back to this country? Does she agree that it would be a travesty if any hon. Member were to oppose the private Member's Bill on Friday 21 March, promoted by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), which would make it illegal for anyone who does that to escape prosecution?
Miss KirkbrideI am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I am shocked that that could occur without the full body of the law being applied. I would welcome any measure to prevent that from happening to children who expect the British law to protect them. However, I should like that protection to be extended across Africa to other children who will be mutilated in that way and whose life chances will be diminished as a result
3.20 pm
Mrs. Ann CryerI praise the Government, with all my heart, for their determined efforts to tackle domestic violence against women. Much has been said about that, but it is worth repeating because the subject is so important.
Just after the election of the Labour Government, the Home Office published a document, which I think was a White Paper, called "Living Without Fear—an integrated approach to tackling violence against women". It impressed me and showed the direction that the Government intended to take to address the problem of domestic violence. That work is carried out by various Departments: the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Solicitor-General's office.
The Lord Chancellor's Department is organising a series of conferences on domestic violence in the Asian community, not because that community experiences more domestic violence than others, but because it is a taboo subject that is not to be talked about in the community.
During the half-term break, I went to the second meeting in Brentford. The first had taken place in Bolton. I spent most of the day there listening to submissions by specialist groups and women. I was impressed by the serious way in which the subject is being addressed. Keighley domestic violence service in my constituency has a specific section to deal with violence against Asian women. The women who help those people are fluent in the various Asian languages and bring them to me for help, which I willingly give. The Brentford meeting coincided with the BBC's excellent "Hitting Home" campaign, which took place over one or two weeks.
At the conference, I met an old acquaintance from Southall Black Sisters who raised one or two difficulties with me. I talked to her about being a member of the Council of Europe, a little-known body—in fact, the best kept secret in Europe. It has 44 member countries and is the parent body of the European convention on human rights. I am a member of its equal opportunities committee and last summer I was asked to produce a report on honour killings in Europe. It was a stressful occupation. However, the report is ready and I shall probably present it next month.
I told the member of Southall Black Sisters about my work on honour killings and she said that people had forgotten about Zoora Shah, but I had not forgotten about her. She came from Bradford and I have an account of her trial and the terrible time that she had. It is written by Southall Black Sisters and begins:
"On 30th April 1998, Zoora Shah lost her appeal to overturn her conviction for the murder and attempted murder of Mohammed Azam on the grounds of diminished responsibility."
As is the case with many women in the Bradford district, including Keighley, Zoora had been brought to the area as a wife. She already had two daughters when she arrived and subsequently had a son. Shortly after arriving in Bradford, her husband left her without money or any form of support. She was homeless and a man called Mohammed Azam offered her a home, but he expected certain favours in return. He also introduced some of his friends to Zoora and she was expected to have sex with them, too. She had three

1005
children and it would have been difficult for her to leave because she would have had nowhere to live and no funds. The support from the local Asian community was thin on the ground to say the least.
Eventually, Mohammed Azam started to show an interest in her two daughters who were about 14 and 15. Zoora decided that there was no other remedy but to obtain poison and feed it to him. Over a few days, she poisoned him to death. I would not for one minute suggest that she did the right thing, but she was under a great deal of strain. When she snapped, she did the only thing that she thought she could do to control that man and to stop him doing to her daughters what he had already done to her. In the summary of her case, the organisation, Southall Black Sisters, says:
"The Courts have been rather more willing to accept cultural and religious factors used by Asian men to excuse the killings of wives and daughters, on the basis that 'their' wives/daughter's behaviour transgresses cultural norms".
Although I do not want to draw comparisons, I want to mention a second case, and I hope that hon. Members reach their own conclusions. A young Bradford woman, Tasleem Saddique, was murdered on 15 June 1995 by a young man called Shabir Hussain. Shabir was the husband of Tasleem's sister. In common with many women in Bradford, Tasleem had been taken to Pakistan when she was 16 for the purpose of marriage. She had a problem—I should say, her family had a problem; I do not think she was terribly worried about bringing the man in—her family had a problem in getting entry for the young man whom she had married in Pakistan. I am not quite sure what happened at that time, as Tasleem cannot tell her own story. On her return to the United Kingdom, she was unable to get entry for her husband, and she sought refuge in one of the Asian women's refuges in Bradford.
As I say, I do not know the story behind that. Because of the primary purpose rule, Tasleem was unable to bring her husband in. I am not knocking the primary purpose rule; I am merely relating what happened. Four years on, when she was about 20, she took up with another Asian man in Bradford. Her sister and her family opposed the relationship and felt that she was bringing shame on the family. One morning her brotherin-law—her sister's husband—Shabir Hussain took a car out. As Tasleem was standing at a bus stop waiting for a bus, he knocked her down with the car, and drove forward and reversed over her several times till she was dead.
Shabir Hussain was charged with murder. The case was protracted, but eventually the charge was replaced by a charge of manslaughter. I do not know the case, but I suggest that he could well have used the defence that the balance of his mind was upset due to the fact that the honour of the family had been undermined by the behaviour of Tasleem. He therefore thought that he was doing the right thing by killing her to preserve the honour of the family.
Shabir Hussain was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, but served only 18 months. Zoora Shah is still in prison. I shall not try to draw comparisons, but I hope that I am right in saying that were those two cases to come to court now, perhaps different conclusions would be reached, because there is a different climate.
1006
Cultural practices and differences, including female genital mutilation, cannot be accepted as an excuse for the violation of the human rights of women.
So that it is not thought that I always go on about Asian women and never speak about white women, I shall mention that a couple of weeks ago, at the time of the enthronement of the new Archbishop of Canterbury on 25 February I submitted an early-day motion entitled "Gender Equality in the Church of England". It states that
"this House recognises and pays tribute to the life and achievements of Monica Furlong, author and journalist, who died on 14th January; celebrates her commitment to gender equality in the Church of England; calls on the Government to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to remove the exemption of religious bodies from the provision of the Act; and calls on the established church to cease forthwith its present discrimination against women priests and accept the need for women bishops."
Mr. KeyI have only one quarrel with that otherwise excellent early-day motion. I would sign it if it were not for the fact that the Church of England Synod currently has a working party on that very issue. It is the constitutional position that the recommendation should come from the Synod through the Ecclesiastical Committee to the House, which I hope would then approve what the hon. Lady says. I wholly agree with her about the importance of having not only women priests, but women bishops.
Mrs. CryerI thank the hon. Gentleman. An early-day motion does no harm in this case; it gives a shove in the right direction.
Glenda JacksonDoes my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman's intervention constitutes a fairly strong argument for disestablishment?
Mrs. CryerIf we start talking about that, I shall be on my feet for another hour. There are good arguments for disestablishment. I have been in touch with Monica Furlong and other women who are involved in those arguments in the Church of England. Some of the stories that they tell me compare with stories that I can tell about imams in Bradford, in respect of the treatment of women priests in the Church of England and how they are regarded as substandard. Since I tabled that early-day motion, I have had one or two letters and one or two conversations with hon. Members. One of them—I shall not reveal who it was—said to me, "You know, Ann, a woman can no more be a priest than she can be a father." That is going a bit too far. It bears comparison with the views of imams in Bradford. I am trying to be fair and even-handed in my discussion of religions.
This afternoon, we have discussed this country's position and the likelihood of war with Iraq. I believe that we should not go to war, and that it will not help the women of Iraq one jot if we do so. As has been mentioned, we ought to look at the position of women in Afghanistan. Agencies and groups that have returned from Afghanistan say that sharia law is being reimposed in some parts of Afghanistan. I did not oppose the war in Afghanistan because I felt strongly about the Taliban and women's human rights in the country. There is a lot of unfinished business there which needs to be tidied up

1007
before we even think of attacking another country such as Iraq. I am not confident that the women of Iraq would benefit from our intervention. While we are looking at the area, the human rights position of women in Iran is probably far worse than that of women in Iraq. What are we going to do about Iranian women or women in Saudi Arabia, where there are very strange views about women?
Finally, everything that I have said has been pretty miserable, so I shall end on a high note. Government Members ought to celebrate legislative changes made in the past year that will again allow constituency Labour parties, where they so wish, to adopt an all-women shortlist when selecting a parliamentary candidate. I wish Opposition Members well in their determination to follow that example.
3.37 pm
Sue DoughtyI, too, congratulate the Government on selecting this important topic for debate.
Progress on dealing with some of the worst injustices to women is still slow, but it is important that at least once a year we have an opportunity for a debate such as this one to take stock not only of what we are doing in this country but of what is happening internationally. We need to reinforce Government intentions and turn them into deeds to secure important improvements. Whatever we say today, our words must be followed with appropriate action.
Last summer, I was a representative of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit at the earth summit in Johannesburg. Having gone there to see what our Government and other Governments were doing to bring about environmental improvements and improved social justice, it was clear that many changes involved social justice for women. It is common sense that women, who make up half the population, should have reproductive health and education rights, and should also participate in the economy and other areas. For the poorest countries, that is the key to economic development, and will bring about change from dire poverty to a much more viable economy.
I was particularly interested to hear some of the arguments in Johannesburg, including an important one about access to clean drinking water. In areas without easy access to water, the people who go and get water are largely women and girls. If girls are fetching water, they are not in school, which is relevant to the argument about universal education. In discussing how we will proceed after the earth summit and the commitment to improve access to drinking water, we must consider how we will liberate women and girls to do things other than just fetching water.
I, too, have been involved in the British Council scheme, and it is worth talking about some of my experiences because the experiences of Tanzania and Kenya are different from each other and also different from those of the country with which I have become involved, which is Eritrea. Eritrea is a desperately poor mountainous country which has only recently gained independence, having been run initially by Italy, then by Britain and more recently by Ethiopia. It has, therefore, been trying to develop its own economy only in the last few years.
1008
There is good news about Eritrea and not-so-good news. I have been over there to help with work on developing political and economic capacity for women. It has a developing Parliament. I cannot match the good news that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) was able to give us about Ruthie. My "twin", Tsegereda, has a full-time job, and is a Member of Parliament only one week in four. The Eritrean Parliament is much more like a council, from which its Members can claim allowances, rather than providing full-time jobs to enable them to do the kind of things that we do. It is a challenge for them to learn how to develop their Parliament and their democracy, such as it is.
Eritrea is a one-party state, and there are major issues about human rights there. It now has only one media source—the state media source—as all the others have been shut down, and several journalists have disappeared. It has a problem relating to the lack of elections, and when elections do take place, the current set of MPs will stand as independents to separate them from the one party, which will, in fact, be backing them. There is no true democracy. National service seems to be open-ended, and this affects women greatly. People go into national service and do not come out. They do not get paid, and are effectively used as slave labour to build roads and to carry out various other activities.
One of the unusual things about the Eritrean Parliament is that, although some people say that the importance that the Government accord to equality for women is, perhaps, lip service, it has recognised that women played a strong role in the liberation army and have therefore earned their right to become Members of Parliament. There is a strange situation in that some of the women MPs physically bear the scars of fighting alongside their male partners in the war. Women undertook a strong role in achieving the liberation of Eritrea. The problem now relates to their successors. There are women Ministers who were fighters, but we must now start to think about developing the successor generation of women who will come along and become representatives, whether in their local village council, a regional assembly or the national assembly. Tsegereda, my "partner", attended university and had a job. She is a role model for the kind of people that women should be bringing on as future leaders. It is important that people should see different kinds of women coming forward as leaders.
Interestingly, we commented to the women's assembly that there are fewer women Members of Parliament here than in the imperfect Parliament over there in Eritrea, 22 per cent. of whose Members are women. It also has a quota of 30 per cent., which will increase the total. Getting there has been achieved very differently from here, but it, too, has problems with getting women to come forward. The role played by Ruthie was wonderfully described, with people going to her with their problems and asking for instant decisions. Things are very different in Eritrea, where people are asking themselves what a Member of Parliament does and what power she has. One of the issues that we discussed was how to develop surgeries and to get people to come forward to comment on what the Government are doing. In some villages that is done by using a suggestion box, either because the surgeries are not yet open or because people do not want to come and discuss

1009
their problems. In those circumstances, they can put a note into the suggestion box—assuming that they can write, of course. So there are a lot of problems there.
I was impressed by the fact that it is recognised that if Eritrea is to build its economy and build on the fact that 45 per cent. of households are run by women because their men are away at war, doing national service or in exile—all factors that exist in a post-conflict situation—it also needs to build women into economic units. If we do not invest in the women, we will have one arm tied behind our backs. Many Eritrean women live in villages and are tied to their homes, where they are bringing up children and seem to cook all day using very primitive stoves. The stoves that they use are health hazards, as children fall over them and burn themselves. Often, they do not have any fuel or have trouble gathering it. The burning of dung is common, but it causes serious respiratory problems. Such work seems an all-day activity.
The women also have no economic independence. If a woman's husband dies, widow inheritance means that another male member of her husband's family can take her as his wife. That leads to problems in terms of the spread of HIV/AIDS, sometimes because the infection caused the husband's death.
There is also very little understanding of nutrition and the need for a balanced diet. There is not only poverty—of course, Eritrea is a very poor country—but lack of knowledge about the fact that feeding a maize porridge to children every day may itself lead to infant mortality.
On the other hand, the assemblies have been building up action plans and considering how they can quickly bring about the intermediate change that is needed to work towards greater change. Some developments have been very exciting. The National Union of Eritrean Women has been working closely with a network of people throughout the country. The trade unions are also very active. I attended a one-day course on which women discussed how they might return to their villages and influence behaviour that can lead to HIV/AIDS.
Eritrea has been a little more fortunate than some countries because it has very strong family structures. Almost everybody is religious; most people are either Muslim, Coptic Christian, Catholic or Protestant. Those structures are in place, but in any post-war situation, people will be on the move. Any development brings about more movement of people. Even the building of essential roads can mean that people have to work away from home on construction projects.
Some of the proposals that are being considered involve very low-technology ideas with which we in the more prosperous economies can help. Eritrea has some electricity, but women who are learning to grow crops so that they have a food source when the men are away can face problems in watering them. People from VSO are helping by providing teaching and a lot of things are happening, but if water is not available, crops do not grow. One solution is the use of solar energy to pump underground water. There is very little infrastructure in some areas, but such solutions are achievable and can help people to make viable arrangements for growing their own food.
1010
There is also some discussion about setting up insurance schemes for animals, as people whose animals are insured might take more interest in their welfare, and other developments are occurring in association with better care of animals. We have also been hearing about credit unions.
On learning to weave, Eritrea has been importing cotton from Ethiopia and India, but if women can learn to weave they can get out of their cottages and start earning as well. People who are teaching women to weave can also talk to them about nutrition. Simple schemes are often very effective. One involves giving donkeys, which can carry enough water for two days. That frees up women to do other things.
One of the most interesting developments could be called an African village Aga saga. The dreadful stoves that the women have to use fill up their rooms with smoke. That is a problem, as they cook all day to prepare bread and the meat that is eaten with it, but they designed a better stove made out of clay. It has a little damper that allows them to burn less fuel, which means that there is less smoke and wood can be used in combination with dung. Such stoves could be sold to women from other villages, who could sell back grain for brewing beer and so on. Such basic trade would be significant. We worry about money, but in some areas of Eritrea, people do not even trade. The women developed that further. They said, "Why are we working on one burner? Why don't we have three, so that we can cook our stew and treat the grain we use for beer as well as bake the bread?". So they ended up with a mini-Aga. They have a model that they take round to other women's houses to show them how they can cook while doing other things, which gets them away from doing nothing but eternal cooking and wood gathering. The British Council is considering tying the latter to a national tree day, because ripping branches off trees does not do them much good. Planting more trees would be a low-cost investment that is very effective in terms of payback.
Another project is based on giving women 25 chickens, which arrive as chicks, so one starts to see chickens running around in the yards outside the houses. That is aimed at developing mixed nutrition, getting protein into people and helping them to bring up their children to do better.
Eritrea is a one-party state and only limited information comes out. Women need to know what is happening in relation to other women. If one of us goes out there, we may be their only source of information about what is happening in other Parliaments. They do not have a lot of written material about that, so the British Council libraries and access to the internet are important ways of providing such information.
The British Council has been strong in teaching English. In Africa, English is often the language of further and higher education. It is not only important in terms of encouraging people to go beyond basic literacy; in a country with nine different languages, it is helpful to have a lingua franca for learning about veterinary skills, horticultural skills and other skills that are needed.
Good work is being done by the aid agencies, but one cannot overestimate the value of the work that is being done by the British Council, with a small level of investment yielding a disproportionate amount of

1011
benefit. It is there not just for the bad times and crises—it is there year after year, understanding how people work and, especially through its scheme in Eritrea, facilitating the development of women in terms of their own economy, their own rights and their own justice. I ask the Government to ensure that investment in such schemes continues and is built on, because the development of women that that encourages will lead to improved economies in those countries.
3.52 pm
Glenda JacksonIn following the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), I should say that I have never visited Eritrea, but in 1985 I was in Ethiopia at the behest of Oxfam. We went as far north as it was possible to go at that time owing to the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which was still raging. We visited one of Oxfam's long-term projects, which had to do with the development of corn that could survive drought-hit regions. The Oxfam officials told me that a few weeks earlier they had had a visit from a small group of people from the local Eritrean People's Liberation Front, who had, with great courtesy, albeit at gun point, requested that the Oxfam people lend them their van, which, being sensible people, they did. The van was driven to the centre of the small town, the bank was blown open, the money was extracted, and the van was returned immediately with many thanks from the Eritrean People's Liberation Front.
I found the contribution to the debate by the hon. Member for Guildford, like those of all hon. Members, intensely interesting. Essentially, what has come out of the debate so far is the enormous capacity of women to develop—to expand and to build on, by virtue of their imagination, creativity, intelligence and ability to work hard, the very small amounts of investment that are made in them as individuals or in groups.
I have also been struck by the fact that many speeches depicting the life of women—in Eritrea, in the contribution of the hon. Member for Guildford—perhaps reflect the position in this country 50 years ago. One hon. Member suggested that women should be in charge of disseminating aid, especially food aid, to countries that need it. Fifty years ago in my family, it did not matter how much or how little food was on the table, the men got it first. If there were second helpings, men were asked first whether they wanted them.
A recurring theme of the debate has been that equality of opportunity requires genuine equality of human rights. That programme must be based not only on internationally defined law and justice but the infinitely harder process of transforming hearts and minds. Female genital mutilation has been mentioned, and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that a private Member's Bill on the subject has been introduced, which I am sure all hon. Members will endorse.
However, the most proactive people in insisting on female genital mutilation are women. Their history is that their capacity to function in their societies and cultures depends on their desirability. I do not use that word in a sexual context, given that female genital mutilation removes the possibility of a woman experiencing sexual pleasure. I mean that women's desirability in their society, culture and, often, religious
1012
framework, depends on a man's appreciation. That is hard to change. We have failed to change it in our country.
Since my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) became a Member of Parliament, she has, to her great credit, detailed the terrible experiences of women in this country whose antecedents and partners are from another part of the world, where cultural traditions are different. She spoke of the horror of honour killing. In a recent case in this part of the world, a father killed his daughter because he did not approve of the young man whom she was seeing. It also happens in our society, although it may be called something else. Under our legal system, if a woman kills her partner, provocation has to be proven. If the charge is a lesser crime than murder, she has to plead that the balance of her mind was disturbed.
I should like to consider another aspect that most speakers have mentioned: the inevitable link between women and their children. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley had given us the name of the hon. Member who argued that women cannot be priests because they cannot be fathers. The obvious rejoinder is that fathers cannot be mothers. Many women in this country have to be mother and father to their children.
I hope that everyone is appalled by acts of violence against children. Such acts are often presented as perpetrated by a stranger who must be a monster, but the greatest damage is visited on children by members of their families. Acts of violence that strangers commit against children almost invariably receive massive coverage. A few months ago, newspapers gave intensive coverage to one such incident when two children were killed. That same week, six other children died but at the hands of their fathers. There was no question of who was guilty or of a trial. Whole families have been eradicated in that way, yet still there is a double standard that has to do with the domestic situation.
Many hon. Members have made telling contributions about domestic violence. I should not want anyone to imagine that I do not appreciate what has been done by the Government and the changes introduced by the police to stop the approach, "This is a domestic and nothing to do with us." I attended the launch, with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), of the Metropolitan police scheme whereby every constable carries a card bearing telephone numbers and addresses that can be used by the young PC encountering domestic violence for the first time in order to obtain assistance.
Ms Oona KingThey should make those cards available to MPs too.
Glenda JacksonYes. I appreciate the Government's actions and the work of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women. However, the resources to assist women who find the courage to flee domestic violence and take their children with them are neither adequate nor available in a sufficiently linked-up way. Only this week I have received letters from Women Against Rape—an organisation in my constituency, part of whose funding is being taken away because the Association of London Government grants committee decided that WAP does not warrant its past level of funding, but it does because the violence goes on.

1013
There are occasional flurries of newspaper stories and BBC programmes about domestic violence, then the topic slides from public view. There are still huge imbalances in our legal system and every other aspect of our national life that impacts against the equality and protection of women and their children.
Women and their children inevitably suffer the biggest brunt of conflict and post-conflict situations. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women paid tribute to the armed forces, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) intervened to ask whether women had not made their contribution to tackling aggression. Neither my right hon. Friend nor the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that this was an oversight, not a deliberate insult—acknowledged the women who did not serve in the armed forces but who certainly kept this country running during the first and second world wars. In many instances, they paid with their lives. That was the pattern of warfare in the second half of the 20th century, and it is certainly the case now. Modern warfare inevitably means that civilians die in the greatest numbers.
I strongly endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley about women's human rights in Iran, and I share her opposition to war against Iraq. Death is a form of liberation but I do not acknowledge the concept that war is a form of mass mercy killing in the way that it has been represented—as moral justification for war in Iraq. There is no moral reason for a pre-emptive strike against a nation state that affords no immediate and direct threat to ourselves or our allies.
We have seen the results of modern warfare in that part of the world. I am thinking of the first Gulf war—the Kuwaiti war. The killing was not all immediate. I have seen photographs of real horror: the war also killed, much more slowly, generations that had to be conceived at the end of it. Genetic defects were caused by the use of 21st-century weapons. The extraordinary environmental degradation, and the horrendous cocktail released by the use of those weapons, has marked generations of Iraqi children.
I regret to say that that will happen again. It seems to me almost monstrous that it should still be argued that we are defending the will of, and respect for, the United Nations in our wish to launch a pre-emptive strike against another nation state. The United Nations' reason for being was surely to prevent war. It did not come into being to serve as the world's international army; it came into being to work for, maintain and help to produce peace.
We, as a world and particularly as a country—during what seems to be an almost inevitable countdown to war—are in a situation that I find incomprehensible in many ways. Almost as incomprehensible to me are the arguments that we have been hearing. It is suggested that if we do not go to war, we shall see the destruction of the United Nations. It is said that, just as the League of Nations died because it failed to act against potential dictators, the UN will be sidelined because the present situation will be seen in a similar way.
I have my own theories on what will constitute a genuine sidelining of the UN. It has nothing to do with the League of Nations, and nothing to do with what in
1014
many instances seems to be a rewriting of the historical precursors to the second world war. We hear much about Abyssinia, but I think a much closer analogy is that of Guernica. There we saw an open city being blown to smithereens; here we see the possibility of a virtually open country, with little ability to defend itself, being blown to smithereens. If we, as a Parliament, as a nation and, I hope, as a Government, are genuine in acknowledging that women have not always had equal rights and, in many respects, still do not have them—and I believe that we are—we should bear in mind that their human rights are certainly one of the first things that any society will discard when it is under pressure.
In a funny way, we speak as though we had established absolute human rights for women in this country, but we know that we have not. Women's human rights play a much more practical part in other democratic societies, and in some that wish to become democratic. A major movement is taking off in the United States, attempting to overturn a woman's right to choose. It is simply not the case that once we have such rights, they are ours for ever. Here I speak entirely from a gender perspective. There is constant pressure not only for the obtaining of equal and human rights for women, but for the maintaining of those rights once they have been secured.
I was particularly touched by what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about a charismatic black woman who, at a conference, used the words "Lift when you rise". It concerns me very much that young women in this country seem to think that it has all been done, and that nothing will block their advancement, wherever they want that advancement to take them. I must tell those young women that they will have a rude awakening further down the line, because it just ain't so. And we in Parliament delude ourselves if we think that we have got it made here—although I pay tribute to the Government for beginning to prioritise the basic bread-and-butter issues that are so important to women. Almost inevitably, they involve proper, affordable child care, and proper support for women who bear most of the responsibilities at the other end of the age range.
Regional difficulties sometimes work against what the Government want. For example, child care in London is desperately expensive and there are huge variations in its provision. Reference was made to the effects of the planning system on the proper provision of child care. That is certainly true in London. Property prices are astronomical and land is not available, so the physical structural changes that are needed for the provision of child care are extremely difficult to achieve.
Sue DoughtyThe hon. Lady referred to the tragedy of women who experience abuse and have to leave home with their children. Does she agree that women who want to leave hostels find it especially difficult to get back into work and to find affordable child care? That does not apply only to parts of the country where there is economic deprivation; women in that situation face economic deprivation no matter where they live. They need as much help as possible to get back into work so that they can look after their families as they want to do.
Glenda JacksonI wholly agree. Often the problem is exacerbated and such women face additional burdens.

1015
Even if they manage to find work and affordable child care, their children have often been traumatised. They have had not only to leave home but to move to a different school, and have lost touch with friends and relations. Women may clear the initial hurdle by getting away from the immediate danger and then find a job and a decent place to live, but the problems remain. We are sometimes too ready to think that the problems have been solved, but often such women need proper support for much longer from the people who provide those maintaining services—if they exist. In many instances, the services may not be provided or may not be linked as they should be and that can create particular difficulties.
I have always argued that if one has anything worth saying in this place one should be able to say it in 10 minutes. I realise that I have been on my feet for far longer than my self-imposed cut-off point, so I shall draw my remarks to a close.
As I said earlier, women can be enormously capable if they are given even the smallest opportunity to help. We are more than willing to take our proper place in the world, so it would be nice if there was slightly more acknowledgement of what that place is. Sometimes sentimental lip service is paid to women as though they were automatically and naturally members of the most caring professions. Women have enormous talent and ability that could help to improve the world, especially in all those areas that cause us so much disquiet at present. We are immensely capable of doing so.
4.13 pm
Vera BairdInternational women's day, which we are celebrating, was started in 1908 in the United States by women socialists. Internationalised by 1911, it was undoubtedly born at a time of great social turbulence and change. I am pleased that it took on and maintained a tradition of protest and political activism. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women pointed out, part of that contemporary activism was that women all over the globe from all social strata started to campaign for the vote.
On this special day, I, too, pay tribute to Mrs. Pankhurst, but I want to make ample mention of the other wing of the suffrage movement. There were divisions in the English movement as to how the vote should be obtained: between the suffragettes, who proposed militancy, and the constitutionalists who, for many years, pursued lobbying channels and were led for more than 40 years by the lifelong constitutionalist, Millicent Fawcett, to whom I want to pay equal tribute.
I shall return to Mrs. Fawcett later, but I wonder whether we politically active women now sufficiently appreciate the privations that those women underwent to obtain the vote and the right to be candidates, which we readily accept is our right today. Of course we still have to work hard. We still collide against gender brick walls, which have to be breached. None the less, we are reasonably equipped for the job. We have reasonable salaries. We are part of a generally respectable cause, and we are pursuing our aims by nothing more personally demanding than argument and lobbying. Do we sufficiently appreciate the personal privation that early women campaigners underwent to get us here?
The first parliamentary seat that I fought—Redcar is the second—was a little further north than Redcar: it was Berwick-upon-Tweed and that was in 1983. As hon.
1016
Members can imagine, I was a very child-like candidate. I lived a few miles from the town of Morpeth, where lay the grave of Emily Wilding Davison, the suffragette who died under the King's horse at the Derby in June 1913. During my first general election campaign, almost 70 years to the day after her death, it was reported that her grave was badly neglected and very broken down.I attribute the success of the women's suffrage campaign to both wings of the suffrage movement and I appreciate that I would not have the right to vote, let alone the right to stand as a candidate, if it were not for such women, so I started to read more about her and the militants.
The militant campaign started in about 1908 in Manchester—I am proud to say that I come from there originally—when Mrs. Pankhurst attended a meeting at the Free Trade hall, addressed by Asquith, and shouted from the back, "Will you give votes to women?" She was arrested, and that was her first period of imprisonment. She seemed to have encouraged that outcome to an extent. The biography of her in which I mostly recently read of that account describes her, after being seized to be removed by a constable, gently spitting into the officer's eye.
Thereafter, for almost every event, demonstration and gesture, as well as for some lawless conduct, the militants were always imprisoned. Some women were frequently and repeatedly imprisoned in extremely harsh conditions. Of course they resisted by going on hunger strike until they almost starved to death, when they were force-fed. Of course force-feeding just stops death by starvation—it does not ensure nourishment—so malnourished women would again go on hunger strike until they started to starve and, again, they would be force-fed.
One can imagine the agonies that such women underwent, and when Mrs. Pankhurst was perceived as almost certain to die if that happened again, the enlightened Government introduced the cat and mouse Act, which allowed women to be released into the community when they got to a very worrying state of ill health, so that they could feed themselves, but, as soon as they were well, they were rearrested and brought back to serve the rest of their sentence. So they went on hunger strike, and they were force-fed and on it went.
Emily Wilding Davison went into custody 12 times for stone throwing, window breaking and setting fire to pillar boxes and, on each occasion, she went on hunger strike and was force-fed—12 times between 1908 and 1913, when she died. I do not think that we take enough cognisance of the extent to which the force-feeding itself was a kind of state torture against those women.
I wish to read a brief paragraph of Emily Wilding Davison's own words, describing the first time that she was force-fed:
"In the evening the matron, two doctors, and five or six wardresses entered the cell. The doctor said "I am going to feed you by force." The scene, which followed, will haunt me with its horror all my life, and is almost indescribable. While they held me flat, the elder doctor tried all round my mouth with a steel gag to find an opening. On the right side of my mouth two teeth are missing; this gap he found, pushed in the horrid instrument, and prised open my mouth to its widest extent. Then a wardress poured liquid down my throat out of a tin enamelled cup. What it was I cannot say, but there was some medicament, which was foul to the last degree. As I would not swallow the stuff and jerked it out with my tongue, the doctor pinched my nose and somehow gripped my tongue with the gag. The torture was barbaric."

1017
One may appreciate the contribution that repeatedly being put through such torture played in Emily Wilding Davison's decision that, if necessary, her life should be lost for the women's cause.
As is well known, on 4 June she ran out with two Women's Social and Political Union flags in purple, white and green wrapped around her body under a jacket, seized the reins of Anmer, the King's horse, and caused it to stumble. The jockey fell off and the horse kicked her. A small fragment of very grainy Pathe News shows her hat landing on the far side of the course and her lying prone, never to move again of her own volition. She died four days later in Epsom cottage hospital. At the time, her action was seen as an immature and hysterical gesture. It has never been universally approved of. It was a perplexing death. She was not an hysteric and she was not immature. She was 41, religious and a double graduate.
I did not win the 1983 general election campaign in the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed and in the days that followed I started to look up more about Emily. In those days, before archive material was as well protected as it is now, I held in my hand the return half of her ticket back from Epsom. Do we really remember such women enough? Emily's grave is still untended and abandoned in the north of England. Three weeks ago, I was asked to give the first Emily Wilding Davison memorial lecture in county hall, Morpeth and a move is being made to fundraise to protect her grave.
We women parliamentarians should take more responsibility for keeping the awareness of such courage alive and passing that word on to the next generation. I will not make any simplistic connections, but it was the next generation of young women who formed the largest group of people who did not vote at the last general election.
I pay tribute to the constitutionalist Mrs. Fawcett, but I also pay tribute to the Fawcett Society, which since her death in 1926 has continued to campaign for women's equality with men. I have expressed concern about the way the criminal justice system treated suffragettes all those years ago. The Fawcett Society has recently become concerned with the way our contemporary criminal justice system deals with women. It has established a year-long commission to look into questions of women and that system and find out whether, and if so how, the system is unfair to women. The commission has a distinguished band of 15 to 16 commissioners, including the experienced criminal High Court judge Mrs. Justice Hallett, Baroness Prashar, First Civil Service Commissioner, and Lord Dholakia, President of the Liberal Democrats and their spokesman on home affairs in the Lords.
I have been privileged to chair that year-long commission. We have only just started and we have come to no conclusions. Why was it even necessary to set up such a commission to look into whether and if so how our criminal justice system is unfair to women? The Fawcett Society has noticed a series of problems in recent years. The problems are not confined to domestic violence, although colleagues here have rightly raised that issue many times today. I shall give three short examples.
1018
A few years ago, the Government intended to abolish the right to elect for trial by jury. That is the right for someone who is on trial for one of a broad range of middle-ranking offences to say, "I want a jury trial. I don't want to be tried by the magistrates court." The notion was to put discretion in the hands of the magistracy and the question was what criteria should be used.
A series of criteria relating to the gravity of the offence were obvious, but others started to be added. However grave or minor the offence, there could be a reason to allow trial by jury if a person were in public life and the conviction was likely to damage their public standing, or if a person had a job, and the conviction, however small, was likely to affect that job. One need only look at those two criteria to appreciate readily that, by all modern definitions, they were indirectly sexually discriminatory: far fewer women, proportionately, are in public life, and far fewer women, proportionately, are in jobs at any one time, as more women are in training, caring for older people and caring for children at any given time. If those criteria were therefore applied to allow the fairer trial of jury trial, because the conviction rate is higher in the magistrates court, it would be done on a sexually discriminatory basis.
For different reasons, that did not happen at all, but in a later legislative mood, in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, a sort of "One strike and you're out," application to probation was proposed. Anyone who was on probation would be warned once, and if they broke their probation order again, they would automatically get three months imprisonment. Proportionately, far more women defendants are put on probation than men. Although men are the bulk of defendants, proportionately more women are seen as offending out of need. Women who shoplift, abuse cheque cards and steal are frequently seen sympathetically by magistrates in particular as not needing punishment but help and support. They are therefore put on probation proportionately far more often than men. For similar offences, men will be fined or will get some other sentence. While men who do not pay their fines would be subject to a whole range of penalties backing that up—perhaps realigning the repayments, a suspended sentence or whatever—women who broke their probation would have an automatic three-month prison sentence. Again, although no one saw it, that policy was, on a closer look, indirectly sexually discriminatory.
In the current Criminal Justice Bill, too, there is a right to elect trial by judge alone. On the face of it, that is an extra right for defendants. Let us consider the position in a rape case in which a female complainant brings to court an allegation that has highly-gendered aspects in relation to the admissibility of previous sexual history and general considerations. The House of Lords has readily accepted in a recent appeal that those are highly-gendered issues, and it is well known that rape complainants are reluctant to come to court and need support anyway. Now, a male defendant facing a rape charge will be able to elect for trial by judge alone: inevitably, by a male judge, as almost 95 per cent. of them are male. Consequently, a female complainant will come to court hoping to have highly-gendered issues heard, and she will have them heard by a man who was,

1019
as it were, chosen by the male defendant, and chosen from a body of men who are not known for high levels of gender awareness.
Judges in recent years—not old fuddy-duddy judges, but relatively young and highly intelligent ones—have none the less been guilty of making immensely sexist remarks in rape trials. For instance, in 2000, in the case of A at the Old Bailey, a judge dealing with an issue of previous sexual history remarked that he thought that previous sexual history should be admitted in the particular case, although he could not do it, because if it were not generally admitted, the jury in a rape trial would never know whether the woman was a whore or a nun. The matter went to the Court of Appeal to see if he had been right about not admitting previous sexual history, and the matter did not get any better. The Court of Appeal said that it was a matter of common sense that if a woman had had sex with a man before—this was an issue of previous sexual history with the defendant—it made it far more likely that she would have consented on the occasion in question. Any woman, any judge who had had some gender awareness training, or any woman judge, if there were any, would have told him that it might have made it infinitely less likely that she would have had sex consensually with the same man again. She might have moved on to a different man and have no interest in the accused any more. He might have been too keen on her and she might not have wanted to engage with him again. Any number of things might influence whether a woman who has had sex with a man once consents or does not again, but it is not common sense that the fact that it is the same man points in one direction only—that she is more likely to have consented.
So male defendants will pick their tribunal—one may think against the interests of women complainants—from a bunch of men, the leaders of whom have spoken out in recent times in the manner I have described. Of course, there are two views; judges can be trained in gender awareness, whereas old-fashioned attitudes in juries are perhaps harder to stamp out. But the real problem in all the cases was that no one had seen that there was any problem of gender at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) mentioned provocation. The defence of provocation is currently used mostly in domestic violence murder cases in which men rely on their wives having said that they intend to leave or having confessed to committing adultery. They say, "A red mist descended, I lost my self-control, and I killed her." One has to ask oneself whether—although no doubt consequences follow if one disrupts a marriage in that way—the woman was simply doing what she was entitled to do. One has to ask whether in this day and age it is appropriate to give credit to a man for losing his temper and killing a woman and to reduce his conviction from murder to manslaughter.
More than 100 men a year kill their partners and about 14 women kill theirs. Women who kill their partners almost invariably do so because they have been the victims of domestic violence again and again and, in a situation in which it is about to befall them once more, they retaliate. Sometimes they react too strongly in what is truly self-defence. If it is proportionate, it is a complete defence and the woman is not guilty. If he is coming at her with fists and feet only and she, as is
1020
commonly the case, seizes a knife and stabs him to death, that is probably disproportionate. The fact is of course that she would never have reacted like that were it not for the history or the threat, yet disproportionate self-defence produces a conviction for murder, not manslaughter. There is therefore an imbalance in the way in which the law deals with murder, and it needs to be looked at. It is something that the Government have picked up very recently, but the issue is that such imbalances are not being seen.
I have given just samples, but in looking at a range of similar imbalances, the commission appreciated that what we might be spotting were scattered tips of a rather sexist series of criminal justice icebergs that needed a systematic and comprehensive examination to establish how far and how deep such sexism goes.
It is right to say that historically about 95 per cent. of all defendants have been men. Unfortunately, the percentage of women defendants has increased enormously quickly. The number of women in jail has increased by 143 per cent. since 1993, so a lot more women are coming into the system. So it is important to look at the imbalances. It is intended that the results of the commission should be published on international women's day next year. I hope that the Government will consider the recommendations with great care and, if there is a need, provide further tools for mainstreaming. This Government, more than any previous Government, are very apprised of the need to work hard towards gender equality and to understand the issues. However, in some areas, genderism is hard to detect. It can be even harder, once it has been detected, to breach it. We suspect that the male-dominated criminal justice system is one of those areas.
I want to describe some suffragette rough justice from 1910. In those days, the suffragettes had got the Government in such a state that most Members of the Cabinet, when away from home, went in disguise. If they did not go in disguise, wherever they went their cars would be attacked and their tyres slashed. Stones would be thrown. On one occasion, Emily Wilding Davison knew that Lloyd George was going to speak in Aberdeen. She went there and, with a horsewhip, lay in wait in the shadows of Aberdeen station for him to come back from his meeting to catch the train. He arrived in the middle of a group of other men, dressed up as a highland clergyman, wearing a dog-collar, deerstalker and tweed cape. She emerged from her sheltered spot, ran at Lloyd George and horsewhipped him. Of course, she was quickly seized and taken away.
It was not Lloyd George. It was a highland clergyman, wearing his ordinary clothes. More imprisonment, more force-feeding, more hunger strikes—ah well, nothing is straightforward. We must match—although perhaps moderate—Emily Wilding Davison's imagination in the way in which we continue to whip up support for women's issues.
4.36 pm
Joan RuddockIt is a great pleasure, as it always is, to participate in a debate that is dominated by women. I want to start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women, who is a great role model for us—not just in her role as Minister for Women, to which she has brought a great deal of

1021
enthusiasm and energy, but by being the head of a substantial Government Department. As she said, only 18 women have found themselves in that position.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who spoke for the Conservatives, is also a role model, for her party, although her role may not be as appreciated as that of the Minister. All the women here today have, undoubtedly, been important in our society by becoming MPs and contributing as they have done.
The international dimension to this debate has been striking and appropriate—it is, after all, international women's day. In the past year, I have spoken on international issues more frequently than on other issues. I will therefore touch on them only briefly today. My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench referred to the Minister in Afghanistan who is responsible for women's affairs, Habiba Sorabi. I too have spent quite some time with Habiba and her colleagues. I was in Kabul but a few months ago. I urge my right hon. Friend that she and her colleagues should fund directly some of the projects that the women's ministry in Afghanistan has identified as essential if there is to be income generation for the women of Afghanistan, and the reconstruction of the country.
I can confirm all that was said by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) about continuing injustices and the way in which women are constantly discriminated against and harassed. Outside the capital Kabul, there is no security for women or men, although women are especially affected—Afghan women and the many international aid workers who strive to serve them. In the past year, funds from the international community for the reconstruction of Afghanistan have been equivalent to but two thirds of the funds that this country alone has set aside for the war in Iraq. Much more needs to be done, particularly if we are to use Afghanistan's reconstruction as a model for the post-conflict situation in Iraq. My sympathies and sentiments on Iraq are very much like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), so I shall say no more about that.
I wish to speak about the wider equality agenda in this country, about the legal structures and about the way in which our laws are supervised by the existing equality commissions. The Government have a long list of achievements in extending equalities. I will not list them all, but they include the equalisation of the age of consent, the setting up of the Disability Rights Commission, the extension of the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976 to introduce a duty on public bodies to promote race equality, the extended protection against discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation, religion, belief and age, on which consultation is currently taking place, the consultation on the future of the statutory equality commissions, and much more.
All these issues significantly affect women. It would be churlish to suggest that we want much more, but this is a case of where more is less. At present, the equality commissions are made up of the Equal Opportunities Commission that deals with women, the Commission for Racial Equality which covers race, and the Disability Rights Commission, which is rather new. In considering
1022
how we supervise the new equality provisions that will be introduced for faith and other issues, we should examine the strong case for having a single equality Act rather than building on the diverse provisions that exist today.
The Government have recognised that, in needing to comply with the European Union directive on sexuality, age and religion by 2006, they have to consider whether they should set up three new commissions that would act in parallel with the existing three commissions or whether they should create a new single equality body. The consultation undertaken by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women has resulted in many contributions, not least those from the Women's National Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and other bodies.
My initial position was one of concern at—indeed, probable opposition to—the idea of a single commission. Like many women and the partner organisations of the WNC, I believed that there was a real danger that a single equality body might result in the position of women not being recognised in the way that it is through the EOC. The EOC has done fantastic work over the years but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women pointed out, huge gaps remain despite the fact that we have had equality laws for 30 years. The pay gap itself is testament to the fact that, even with the EOC, we have not been able to achieve all that we might. It is not as though we have got it and can therefore move on. We still have an enormous amount to do.
Women form a majority in this country. Minority groups face specific and different types of discrimination, but women suffer systemic discrimination arising from gendered roles, a gendered labour market and gendered wealth. A different approach is therefore needed to dealing with a majority and such conditions from one dealing with minority discriminations. I have always found it odd that the budget of the CRE is two and a half times that of the EOC.
There is concern that, in a single equality body, women might be marginalised and that there would be a hierarchy of disadvantage, to the detriment of women. That is of particular concern because the EOC recently became reinvigorated and more visible. The consultation undertaken by the WNC, a body charged with bringing women's views to the attention of the Government, has not been concluded, but I know from its discussions with women's groups that there is great concern among women's organisations that a single equality body may not be the way forward. However, the EOC is now on record as supporting a single equality body, and I have to remain open to persuasion; but as I said at the outset, only with a single equality Act can we properly underpin the work of a single equality body.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is not persuaded that a single equality Act is necessary, but if there is a logic in bringing together in a single body the existing work of the commissions and adding to it the new discriminations that have to be addressed, there must be a similar logic in bringing together the body of existing law and the new laws that have to be put in place. I stress that I do not argue simply for consolidation, however. At present, equal rights are stronger for some groups than for others. Devolution has created additional anomalies. The Scottish

1023
Parliament and Executive have a power to promote equality. In Wales, as part of the Government of Wales Act 1998, equality is represented as an absolute duty. A single equality body already exists in Northern Ireland. While the Northern Ireland Assembly is suspended, UK Ministers are developing a single equality Bill for Northern Ireland.
Any planned legislation on religion, sexual orientation or age is only linked to employment. The protection against discrimination in goods and services will not be extended to those groups. To do so would require the Government to introduce primary legislation, but the plan is to create the new rights in regulation. That is unsatisfactory, and I urge my hon. Friend and her colleagues to consider what Lord Lester has proposed in the other place. In introducing his Equality Bill last Friday, he set out the consequences of not having primary legislation in the form of a single equality Act. Lord Lester said:
"Without primary legislation, women will continue to face a heavier burden of proof in discrimination cases outside the employment field; a homosexual or a Muslim denied a service because of sexuality or religion will still be unable to obtain legal redress; and an elderly person, denied essential services by a health authority or local council on the ground of age"—
those people will mostly be women—
"will be denied legal redress. Except in the field of race relations, there will be no positive duty on public authorities or large employers to make progress towards equality of opportunity."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 28 February 2003; Vol. 645, c. 527.]
I appreciate that my hon. Friend has been considering those matters for much longer than I have, and I am sure that she will get a consensus on developing a single equality body, but I will be surprised if that consensus does not also call for an underpinning of a single equality body with a single equality Act.
The Equal Opportunities Commission issued a press release in which it welcomed various aspects of Lord Lester's Equality Bill, including the fact that it is
a single bill bringing together all the equality legislation".
The EOC went on to welcome
"the introduction of a public sector duty to promote equality; the introduction of protection against discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services across all the equality grounds; the establishment of a single equality body; the inclusion of pregnancy as a recognised ground on which discrimination is not permitted"
and
"the inclusion of a duty to promote good community relations."
I wholeheartedly endorse the view of the EOC. Again, I ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women to follow matters in the other place with care. We will need to adopt such a single equality Bill, and it would be appropriate for the Government to introduce it, rather than a private Member.
Between 1997 and 1998 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, now the Solicitor-General, and I served in the Government as Ministers for Women. We put in place much of the machinery that has underpinned the equalities work of the Government. I take this opportunity to seek from my hon. Friend the assurance that whatever development there is in terms of a single equality body, the women and equality unit of Government will remain in place. It will undoubtedly need to be further funded
1024
in order to cope with an increased work load. I also seek her assurance that the Women's National Commission, which has gained vigour and a louder voice than ever under our Government, and which is so valued by women's organisations in this country, will have a certain future.
One of the proposals that we were unable to get accepted six years ago was the idea that there should be a Select Committee on gender. I hope that Ministers will now accept that a Select Committee on equalities is an idea whose time has come. I hope that Ministers will consider the proposal carefully and in doing so will study the excellent work undertaken by the Scottish Equal Opportunities Committee and the Equality of Opportunity Committee of the Welsh Assembly.
If a single equality body is to be put in place as a means of rightly providing joined-up thinking and operation for equalities right across the agenda, and if that body is to oversee real equality for all groups in this country for the first time, a single equality Act, in which existing legislation is levelled up and equalised and new provisions made, will be essential to future equality, particularly the equality of women in this country.
4.53 pm
Julie MorganI am pleased to speak in the debate, which has been interesting, enjoyable and stimulating. I am particularly pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and add my support to the views that she expressed about a single equality Act.
The debate is an opportunity to take stock of the present situation in the United Kingdom, in Wales and internationally. I shall start by considering briefly the position in Wales, where we have made much progress. International women's day is a useful opportunity to spell out the good things that have happened. In introducing the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women said that there had only ever been 18 women Cabinet members in the House. I am pleased to say that we have already had seven women Cabinet members in the Assembly Cabinet in Wales during the four short years of its life. At present, there is a majority of women in the Cabinet in Wales, which is probably unique in the world. Forty-two per cent. of Assembly Members are women. There are 16 Labour women Assembly Members, compared with 12 Labour Assembly men.
It is now common in Wales for women to take the lead on major policy issues, which is a huge change. The Assembly operates family-friendly hours, and I am pleased that here in Westminster we have taken a step forward on such hours—that is a huge improvement.
In Wales, the Assembly operates in an inclusive, consultative way, which is partly due to the country's small size—it is much smaller than England, for example—but also to the Government of Wales Act 1998, which gives it the duty of working closely with the voluntary sector, with which it has a compact and in which many women are involved. Women have been able to prosper in the atmosphere fostered by the Assembly. Nevertheless, there are still problems in Wales, including the pay gap between men and women. The introduction of the minimum wage has increased the wages of thousands of low-paid women in Wales.

1025
Keir Hardie had three great aims—the introduction of the minimum wage; devolution; and reform of the House of Lords. I am pleased that we have been able to introduce the minimum wage and have got devolution. Unfortunately, we have so far failed on the House of Lords, but I hope that one day we will get a democratic upper House.
The introduction of the minimum wage has had a huge impact on women in Wales and reduced the pay gap there by 3 per cent.—the biggest ever reduction in one year. The Assembly's introduction of learning grants, amounting to up to?1,500 for less well-off students in higher and further education, was important. The availability of such grants for students in further education is significant for women, as many of them take access courses as mature students and need that money to help them manage. I hope that similar grants will be introduced in England, as proposed in a recent White Paper, because it is important that we give financial support to women so that they can have access to education later in life.
Money is now available for students for child-care, separate from a hardship fund, which is a big boost. For older women in Wales, there have been many developments, but I would single out the bus passes that entitle pensioners, disabled people and their carers to free bus travel anywhere in Wales, and across local authority boundaries. The scheme is unique, and many women have told me that there has been a huge improvement in their quality of life because they can now go and see people whom they have not been able to see for years. The scheme is of benefit to both men and women, but it has a tremendous effect on women's lives in Wales because they make up the majority of pensioners.
A mixture of measures from Westminster and the Assembly has resulted in a big improvement in women's lives in Wales. It is important to make a strong statement about that on international women's day, but we must also acknowledge that there is still a long way to go and that poverty is still a serious issue in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford mentioned the Assembly's duty to promote equality, which has been important in mainstreaming gender issues in its work. The Equal Opportunities Commission has done research in Wales demonstrating the significant impact of that duty. I strongly support my hon. Friend's plea for an equality Act and a duty on Westminster to promote equality. I hope that the Minister will give her views on that in her response.
Much progress has been made in acknowledging the seriousness of domestic abuse. I pay tribute to the women Ministers on the ministerial committee promoting that issue, and look forward to the Green Paper to be published in spring. I hope that one result of that consultation will be a proposal for anonymity for the victims of domestic violence—this has already been mentioned in the criminal justice White Paper—because
that would represent a big step forward in encouraging women to get to grips with these difficult problems.
I have worked closely with the unions on this issue. I am working with Unison at the moment, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Pat McCarthy, Unison's regional officer in Wales, who has
1026
already organised two conferences on domestic violence this year, and who is preparing to respond to the Green Paper when it is published and wants to lobby Ministers and take an active role. It is important that we should involve women from the unions and from the grass roots, as well as the victims of domestic abuse, to try to get their voice into this consultation paper. It is brilliant that we are going to have this Green Paper. It is the first ever of its kind, as was mentioned earlier, and it is also significant that a Labour Government are producing it.
In a Welsh context, I am also pleased to say that Jane Hutt, the Minister with responsibility for social services and health in the Welsh Assembly Government, will today announce the future of the women's safety unit in Cardiff. I chair the Cardiff domestic violence forum, so I have been very involved in setting up the unit. It is a unique project which supports women and children who are victims of domestic abuse. It consists of a small staff group, with people seconded from the police, Women's Aid, the probation service, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Black Association of Women Step Out—BAWSO—and, in a very short time, it has had a significant impact on domestic abuse in Cardiff.
Independent research has shown that, during its time of operation—not much more than a year—the number of women reporting domestic violence has gone up, the number of repeat incidents has gone down, the number of women withdrawing from cases has gone down and the number of reports to social services expressing concern about children has gone up. There is, therefore, objective statistical evidence to show that we can alleviate the situation if we put a bit of investment into a multi-agency project that does not necessarily take women and their families and put them into refuges, but rather works with them so that they can stay in their homes by supporting them, going to court with them, working with the solicitors and the police and working in a tremendously supportive way. That is what has happened in Cardiff and it has made a significant difference.
I refer many women to the women's safety unit. Like many other Members, I have a lot of women coming to my surgeries who are frightened and do not know where to turn. It is a huge step for them to come to an MP's surgery. I often see women—I am sure we all do—who are weeping, who do not know what to do and who are in a desperate situation. Now, in Cardiff, all that I have to do is phone someone at the women's safety unit and tell them that there is a woman in a difficult situation. They will see the woman that day, go to her house, go to the police with her, work with her to contact the housing department, and go to the children's schools. The unit provides a total package of support, and I am so pleased that the future of the project is being confirmed today. Jane Hutt is announcing today that the funding will continue, with a mixture of funding from the Welsh Assembly and the Home Office. Such a project would never have been started without the total commitment of Ministers here to tackle this horrendous issue, which has remained behind closed doors for many years. I want to congratulate everyone involved on the fact that we now have the project up and running so effectively, that it has been evaluated objectively, and that this announcement is being made today. It is great that we can say this today.

1027
I want to turn now to international issues. International women's day is a day on which we celebrate the achievements of women all over the world. The contributions that have been made about women's experiences and what women have seen in other countries have been humbling and have put what we are doing in this country into an international context. Such contributions make us realise not only how fortunate we are in many ways, but how much we have to learn from what women Members have seen in other countries.
It is a great privilege for us that as women parliamentarians, we can make links with women throughout the world. Last year, I visited Iran with a group of women parliamentarians, including the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman. I thought that I would mention the visit as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) also referred to problems in Iran. Human rights abuses in that country have been well documented. They especially affect women and there is no doubt that they continue. However, I wanted to put it on record that those on the visit were very cheered by the confidence and optimism of the women whom we met in Iran. We felt that they had a great deal of hope for the future. We were very impressed by the fact that 60 per cent. of university students were women and that there had been a huge increase in the number of voluntary bodies, which seemed to be springing up all over the place. Although we must use every opportunity that we can to condemn the human rights abuses that still take place in Iran, it is important that we keep up the dialogue and continue to engage with Iran and particularly with the women politicians whom we met.
Sandra GidleyAs the hon. Lady mentioned, I went to Iran on the same visit. Is she aware that since our visit, the women parliamentarians whom we met have taken a strong public stance against stoning? It is always useful for women parliamentarians to work together.
Julie MorganI thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I noticed that a strong stand was taken very soon after we returned home. I hope that we showed those women our solidarity and our wish to work with them against the human rights abuses that occur in Iran and against stoning in particular.
Several hon. Members have mentioned Iraq and I should like to finish my speech with some brief comments about the situation there. It is very important that we express in this international women's day debate our solidarity with the women of Iraq. We are all aware of our hopes and aspirations as women in this country and we all know that, if there is a war in Iraq, many women and children will be killed and injured and many will be displaced and become refugees, as has been mentioned. Such women will flee to countries such as Iran, which already has the largest number of refugees of any country in the world. Indeed, it already has some 2 million refugees from Afghanistan.
We know that life is grim under sanctions and under Saddam Hussein and we are divided in our views about whether and in what circumstances Iraq should be attacked. It is right to acknowledge those divisions and accept that they exist in the House, but we all have the same end in mind—we all want peace for the people of Iraq and want the women in Iraq to be able to flourish, develop and have all the hopes for the future that we
1028
have. I cannot see how the humanitarian consequences of an attack allow it to be justified. I align myself with other hon. Members who have expressed such feelings today about an attack on Iraq.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women said that women were consistently more against war than men. All the opinion polls show that that is the case. One recent poll showed that 70 per cent. of women were opposed to the attack on Iraq. I suppose that that is not surprising. All the statistics still show that women are the main carers of children and old people, and the main carers in society. Women bring up children, watch their every step, see all that eagerness for the future and all that hope ahead, and know that bombs from the sky can destroy it all, so I understand completely why so many of them have such strong feelings against war.
Many more women should work as diplomats and in the aid field. Women need to be in positions where they can negotiate and go to the furthest ends for peace. I may be going along with stereotypes, but women tend to work more consensually in terms of looking for solutions and not giving up. They often have the hard grind of bringing up children in a family, having to compromise in all directions, and never being able to do everything that they want to do because they have to look after someone else. That leads to a different attitude and a different way of working.
When we listen to all the people who are talking about war, we do not hear many women's voices raised very loudly. I want to put on the record my solidarity with the women in Iraq and my hope that we can reach a peaceful solution.
5.11 pm
Peter BottomleyI think that all hon. Members agree that a peaceful solution would be desirable, but it is a question of how we get there. Allowing the present regime to continue in Iraq is not the right way, and I say in solidarity with the Prime Minister that I look forward to the day when all the refugees from Iraq can return there, including many women.
In El Salvador, I had the experience of meeting groups of women who had come back over the border when the then ruling regime stopped being quite so nasty. Fighting was still going on—indeed, it broke out
around us—and it was the women who were carrying on the discussions.
Around the world, the first duty of people in politics is to try to avoid unnecessary war. There are very few examples of wars in which both sides are reasonably democratic. A second duty is to avoid unnecessary high-level persistent civil war. Similarly, there are relatively few examples of really bad high-level civil wars in countries that are reasonably democratic—by that, I mean those with Governments that stay in power with the consent of the people. We must then address other issues that matter, but not quite as much—because the
biggest devastation comes from war—such as health, education and prosperity.
It is a matter of record that in the household I share half the MPs are men—namely, me—and the 100 per cent. that got into the Cabinet was not me. I am the founder member of the Denis Thatcher society, which comprises men who are married to women who are more important than we are.

1029
Unless we understand the causes of unfairness and have a greater sense of ambition about what we want to achieve, the lives of those for whom we care will not be as good as they should be. It has rightly been said that women bear an over-high proportion of caring responsibilities. They do the working, but they also do the caring—for the young, for the old, for the ill, for the bad and for the sad. Who visits you in prison? Who visits you in hospital? Who cares for you in the hospice? It is a great spread of responsibilities. Anyone who thinks that family policy is about saying that we have got it all right is all wrong. Families are there to be strong when things go wrong, whether by chance or because of people's bad behaviour.
What is to be done? Every week, 2,400 people, mostly young men, commit a serious criminal offence for which they could be sent to jail for six months or more. Most of those offences have victims. One third of our young men have a serious criminal conviction by the age of 30. The figures for women are dramatically lower. I commend the prison statistics on page 15 of CM 5743. It gives figures for the past 100 years.
In 1920, a total of 11,000 people were in jail, of which roughly 9,500 were male and 1,400 were female. In 1940, the figure and proportion were not very different. However, in 1960, the prison population had increased to 27,000, of which roughly 26,000 were male and 900 were female. In 1980, there were more than 40,000 male prisoners in a total prison population of 42,000. There is something deeply wrong in our country when the male-female imbalance in offending is so great. Women should not have to solve that. It is a continuing social disaster and, as with all such disasters, one must look to the people who have the power. They tend to be white, middle-class men in work.
We all know about the National Children's Bureau born-to-fail studies. The problems will not be solved if we ask the victims to solve them or tell the mothers who do most of the caring that it is up to them to make things better. The rest of us must share the responsibility.
Some may laugh at international women's day and others may perceive it as a serious way in which to show international solidarity. However, I believe that one of the day's purposes is to ask men what they are doing to help tackle problems of which women are too often the victims.
Let us consider another example. Five thousand people who were smoking last week will never smoke again: 2,000 have died—not all prematurely—and 3,000 have given up. Tobacconists sell roughly the same amount of cigarettes every week. That means that 5,000 people took up smoking last week. Nearly all are teenagers and a growing proportion is female.
We should not tell young people that they are too young to smoke because we thereby imply that they are doing an adult thing. We should tell 15 or 17-year-olds who smoke, "It's a childish thing to do. Bad luck, you're the one in three who does it. It's a habit that costs?30 a week after tax." It is disastrous that smoking is so class based. It may remain true that the people most likely to smoke are lone mothers on income support. That is the worst group of people to smoke because smoking uses up their resources, and their health and that of their children is worst affected.
1030
My third example is sex. Every week in this country, 6,000 people contribute to a conception that ends in a formal termination. There are 170,000 or more abortions a year in this country. It takes two to tango. Let us allow that part of the figure relates to people who come here from other countries. That means that 3,000 home-grown conceptions end in termination. Six thousand people—not all of them hyperactive teenagers, but people in their 20s, 30s and 40s—engage in sexual activity that ends in their saying, "Cripes! What now?" Why we cannot get our figures down to those of the Dutch is beyond me.
Men and women must be able to say that if we are sufficiently grown up to be closer to someone than simply sharing a toothbrush with them, we should be prepared to ask, "What about conception and fertility choice?" We should stop waffling on about family planning or birth control. After a good party, people are not thinking about planning a family or controlling birth when they get around to having it off.[Interruption]. We must be more explicit at all ages. We must get away from the embarrassment that stops people considering such matters. We should let our children and grandchildren learn from our mistakes, so that they do not do as we did but as they can, and have more choice in their lives.
Sandra GidleyThe Health Select Committee is examining teenage pregnancy and sexual health. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that relationship education should start in primary school, to provide a good basis on which to build?
Peter Bottomley: Such education should probably start in the home. The chief rabbi said recently that many people first experience unconditional love given by adults around them too late in life; and that adults need to love young people enough to say "no" at times. I do not say that I have been a particularly good parent. I have spent too much time at weekend family policy conferences, talking about why parents should be at home with their children.
It is clear from surveys in my constituency that young people need care, control, support and love. I may be better at caring, others at controlling. It is a mixture of the two that matters. I refer to social assets and cultural strengthening—the American sociologist the late Robert Merton used the term social capital. Individuals who do not come from extended families need communities that will incorporate the child of a lone caring parent who comes to or moves around this country, just as they would the child from a large family with many cousins who regularly get together. There is a strength in intermediate groups—an expression used by Archbishop William Temple.
I am sorry that I was not present for the start of the debate. I was involved in a good cause elsewhere. It has covered what has been called everything from the womb to the tomb.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend means, from the womb to the afterlife.
Peter Bottomley: I must be modest in my aspirations.
I do not want to extend my contribution but will comment on the possible merger of equal opportunities bodies. If that must happen, I hope that the result is

1031
called something like the "Fairness Commission". Equality comes from fairness and equality. Equality by itself is just a word that does not add up to treating people fairly. When will the colour of a person's skin mean the same as the colour of their eyes or hair—something that is noticed but which says no more about them? When will the stage be reached when being a woman or man—although there may be many
overlapping roles and some differences—does not dictate one's role in life, outside some essential differences in caring? When will someone who has physical or mental handicaps find that their abilities matter more than their disabilities? When will the stage be reached when we no longer generalise and say that a man who thinks that he is half-qualified for a job imagines that he is over-qualified, whereas a woman who thinks that she is half-qualified believes that she is disqualified?
Too often we tell people that they must push themselves forward. Men and women do so but in general, the man wins the opportunity, opens the door and goes through while others wonder what is on the other side. We can make progress partly by example, partly by exhortation, partly by experience and partly by education. The progress that we make in this country is nothing compared with the progress needed in places such as Iraq, Zimbabwe and the Great Lakes region. We have achieved much, but there is still so much more to do, to make people's lives better.
5.23 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I am answering this debate as a representative of the majority population of the world—as I learnt from the excellent Department of Trade and Industry brochure, "Does sex make a difference?", published to mark international women's day. It clearly does. I was interested to discover that there are fewer women than men in the world. For every 100 men, there are 98.6 women.
I may not look like a shadow. I may not even look like a deputy shadow. But I am the deputy shadow Minister for Women. My boss—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman)—is elsewhere, pursuing her responsibilities in international development.
I was extremely interested by what the Minister for Women said. What struck a particular chord with me was her mention, in the section of her speech on women at war, of the important contribution from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and the Pacific countries generally during the second world war—indeed, from wherever women were contributing to the war effort, not just in Britain. As an admirer of Australia who has many family members there, I too feel that we should recognise the contribution made by the countries I have mentioned, and, of course, the huge contribution made by those back at home—the women.
I was delighted when the Minister spoke of the millennium goals at Doha. She referred to the importance of access to markets and to medicines, and the need for reform of the common agricultural policy. In fact I found it hard to disagree with much of what she said, which was deeply worrying. She did, however, prompt me to point out that a huge effort is being made to help people who do not work here to understand Parliament, and also to promote understanding of the
1032
scientific community. Some of that is due to Government initiatives, but much of it is not. I commend the Royal Society for its pairing scheme. I was lucky enough to be paired with Dr. Lisa McNeill of the Southampton Oceanography centre. I learnt a great deal about the world of science and about Dr. McNeill's specialist subject, marine geology. I hope that she began to understand the political process here.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) pointed out that there was no substitute for Members of Parliament actually going to see how the rest of the world lives. The more we live in an ivory tower here, the more we will deserve to be ignored. We should not blush when we go and see what is happening elsewhere. Indeed, today's debate has been characterised by contributions from those who have travelled, and gained enormous insight and experience as a result.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) told us a good deal about her own experience. I know that the Deputy Minister for Women will have a lot to say about that speech, because much of it was directed at her.
The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) made a brave speech about transsexuals. He is, of course, entirely right. One of the guiding lights that led to my interest in politics was the importance of treating minorities properly in a democracy. Was it Ben Whitaker, who once represented Hampstead, who founded the Minority Rights Group in the 1960s? I subscribed to it during my years as a teacher, and learnt a huge amount. That undoubtedly coloured my appreciation of the importance of protecting minority rights in a democracy—including the rights of those who wish to hunt foxes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) made an important speech about the role of women in Parliament, and the difficulty women experience in entering the House, whatever their party. She challenged us to think about how members of all parties, but particularly mine, can encourage more women to go into politics. She touched on positive discrimination. I thought that I was the last person in the world who would allow those words to pass my lips, but I see no alternative to some form of that if the barriers are to be breached. Fortunately, however, that is a problem not for me, but for my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Of course, we must also learn to respect the autonomy of associations.
Ms Dari Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says we must now rely on the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I can tell him, as a long-term member of the Boilermakers Union—which sees me, most definitely, as an honorary boilermaker—that I could never have achieved equality or equal treatment without the men in my union. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he has a very big role to play.
Mr. Key: My role may be big, but the hon. Lady's charm is deceitful. I suspect that charm as well as ability has got her where she is today.
We learned much from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris) when she courageously decided that she had had enough. I was

1033
very interested in one of her comments. The House may remember that she called for politics to be conducted differently. She said:
"I was not prepared to play the game… I could have played it like a man to further my career but in the end I said sod it."
We should all remember that in future. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) also has things to teach us. She said:
"Women are not stupid and they can see what sort of game politics is and it is not one at the moment that numbers of them identify with."
When Mo Mowlam left the Government and Parliament, she said of the comments that were made about her:
"Some of it was very cruel… There's a boys' club in politics—I think women get a tougher time. But it's not just sexism, it's about power politics, it's about who they want where."
The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for the rights of women, was referred to earlier and has produced a report on women in politics. Its briefing paper concluded:
"The style is confrontational with an emphasis on scoring points… Many women are put off politics altogether by the way they see politicians behave."
No one could take exception to our behaviour this afternoon. The debate has been very constructive and interesting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove contrasted the problems in this country with those in Kenya and described how women there are treated like cattle and beaten by their husbands. A similar situation existed in this country not so long ago. I am sure that many people know that the origin of the everyday phrase "a rule of thumb" is that a man could not use a stick to beat his wife that was thicker than his thumb. The term is not that old.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) has a deep knowledge of the people whom she represents. When I hear her speak, perhaps on "Today" after some especially appalling tension or incident in her constituency, I often think that she talks a lot of common sense. That is good for politicians. We did not agree on signing up to her early-day motion on gender equality in the Church of England, but I was really making the point that the House should not initiate change in the Church of England. Change must come if the Church wills it—we will not get on to disestablishment for the time being. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Do not tempt me!
The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) spoke of her personal experience in Eritrea. She talked about water, VSO, solar energy and the British Council. I am grateful to her for sharing her experiences.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) was, as ever, an example to us all. She spoke with no notes and much passion. What a refreshing change that is in this Chamber. We are all guilty of not living up to her standards. She seeks always to change hearts and minds; I wish I could change hers on Iraq.
The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) spoke with huge authority. We have come to respect what she says. She talked of gender awareness
1034
and spoke about Mrs. Fawcett. The hon. Lady is no longer present, but when she reads the report of the debate, she may be interested to learn that my first act as a Minister in the newly created Department of National Heritage in 1992 was to list the Fawcett hall, which is only 10 minutes from this building. That was the first occasion on which the criterion of historical importance was used to list a public building—my little footnote to her history.
Ms Hewitt: Well done.
Mr. Key: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) spoke with passion about the single equality Act that she envisages. We await the Minister's response to that.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke about the Welsh experience and I am glad that we had the benefit of her contribution. It is interesting that no Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies are in the Chamber. Scottish women have thus been wholly unrepresented in our debate, which is a great pity. The hon. Lady also talked about experience overseas and the need to understand what makes people tick all over the world.
Many of us have travelled to difficult parts of the world. I have certainly done so. I visited a refugee camp in Mozambique in the pre-Mandela era, and I have also seen repression in Nicaragua. The thing that continues to distress me most about Africa is the situation in Zimbabwe. I last visited Zimbabwe when it was still a prosperous, happy place, and I feel for the women of all races in that sad land.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) made a number of important points, but I should like to back up what he said in response to an intervention: sex education starts in the home, but too often—this is a purely personal view—homes fail children when it comes to looking after the sexual maturity of girls in particular. That is why the biggest single health problem in my constituency is chlamydia, which spreads like wildfire and is to do with clubbing, spiked drinks and unconscious gang rapes and the need for the morning-after pill. It is not fair to blame the child for that; the parents have a lot of responsibility too. We all have a responsibility in setting a good example to our children, and sex education has a role to play from an early age.
I shall move on quickly. Women's day is important and relevant today. That was brought home to me by a member of my staff who has been covering for my secretary, who is on maternity leave. She has been seeking a new job. She told me only yesterday that she had applied for one or two jobs and that she had been contacted by prospective employers and asked whether she is married or single, what is her age, whether she has children and, if so, what are their ages. She said, "I don't suppose a man would be asked those questions, would they?" I pointed out to her that that was against the law, but most women do not seem to know that. I would not want to work for anyone who asked such questions, and we need to send out that message.
There are all sorts of other problems in the wide range of state provision for women and men in this country. There are all sorts of voluntary organisations, but they

1035
do not always succeed in getting long-term funding. That was brought home to me only a couple of weeks ago by a letter from the centre manager of the Salisbury district well woman centre. I simply make the point that, for?75,000 a year, it provides a magnificent service and. as the centre puts it,
"enables and empowers women to help themselves and their families by providing information, support and practical advice."
It says that, in an area such as south Wiltshire, which is very prosperous,
"it is the wealth and rural composition of Wiltshire that further isolates those socially excluded"—
the position is made worse for those people—
"through disadvantage and helps keep pockets of rural poverty hidden."
That is just the sort of small hole that can be plugged by such organisations, and I wish it well as we try to find funding.
Of course not all women take a similar point of view. A remarkable national organisation, called Full Time Mothers, which is based in London, has a member in my constituency. Under the title, "Equal not identical", the leader article in its spring newsletter says:
"You read it here first: men and women are not the same! It seems ridiculous that it should be un-p.c. to say so. FTM has long adopted the role of challenging the 'Emperor's new clothes' mentality of a society that has confused 'equality' with an insistence that men and women should be interchangeable. Whilst the Government tries to organise the tax system so as to `encourage' mothers to go out to work, it is also attempting to persuade more men into the burgeoning childcare industry which is the inevitable consequence. Fathers are to become the new mothers—and vice versa. Help!"
That point of view needs to be listened to, on behalf of Full Time Mothers.
I wish to touch on a couple of issues that are very important at the moment, the first of which is women in the armed forces. I congratulate all three services on the way in which they have adapted to the 21st century, particularly in the past decade or so. We have seen a truly remarkable improvement in the way in which women have had increasing access to more parts of all three services.
I always took the view that it was important that the decision on whether women should operate in the front line should be a military judgment. It is not only a question of physiological or psychological arguments; it is about the fighting spirit and what happens when one is on the front line and things go wrong. The military are the best people to make that judgment and the Government were right to conclude that it must be a judgment for them. The military concluded that women should not be in the front line for the time being.
Women have an extraordinary record of success in the armed forces. They have a long way to go, but they have made huge progress nevertheless and have my support in continuing with that. It is significant that a large number of women are serving in the forces and have been deployed to the Gulf region. They will find irreplaceable roles there.
We should also remember the families that follow the flag—the people who are left behind at times of great anxiety such as these. Only yesterday, because my constituency is very military, I was talking to the Army Families Federation about the present situation, and the
1036
assistance that it can give to forces families. The same is true of the organisation for Navy wives. The Royal Air Force has the Airwaves communication channel, and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association also has a lot of work to do. They are all in our minds at the moment. We should never forget that behind a man or a woman in the forces is a spouse or partner on whom they depend. The relationship is completely interdependent.
Will the Minister ensure that her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence in their planning at interdepartmental level for a response to the present humanitarian crisis in Iraq, but more particularly if there is conflict afterwards, take most careful note of United Nations Security Council resolution 1325? That resolution expresses
"concern that civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict".
I draw the Minister's attention to paragraphs 4, 5, 11 and 12 of that resolution. Paragraph 4 urges the Secretary-General
"to seek to expand the role and contribution of women in United Nations field-based operations, and especially among military observers, civilian police, human rights and humanitarian personnel".
Paragraph 5 urges a "gender component", to use the jargon, in peacekeeping operations. Women should be properly considered. Paragraph 11 emphasises the importance of putting
"an end to impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes including those relating to sexual… violence against women and girls".
We should ensure that those crimes are excluded from amnesty provisions. Paragraph 12 calls on all parties to armed conflict to include in the design of refugee camps and settlements appropriate care for women.
This has been a remarkable debate. We have heard a wide range of views and we have all made a positive contribution. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply. There is a continuing need for an international women's day to remind us all of our duty to the other half of the population in a world that is still dominated by men.
5.43 pm
The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I greatly appreciated the tone and content of the speech of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). He has summed up our debate admirably and I will attempt to follow in his footsteps.
This has been an extremely good debate—a very good day. From the beginning, I was struck by the fact that the debate lived up to its name and was truly international, with speeches from the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) about Eritrea and from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) about Kenya.
If I had to single out a speech—it is always invidious to do so—that captured the mood of the House and the international flavour of today, it would be the wonderful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) about Tanzania. Although I have visited that part of Africa, I have not had the privilege of going to Tanzania. I would certainly like to go there and her speech brought it alive. It was a truly remarkable speech.

1037
Today gives us an opportunity to remember a time when women across the world were still demanding the right to vote and the right to hold public office. In some parts of the world, of course, that fight continues. We have the opportunity today to take stock of where we are, to look forward, and to remember from where the fight came. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) spoke about the contribution of Emily Wilding Davison. While she was speaking, I remembered that when I started to read the history of the period, what shocked me most of all was the cat and mouse Act to which she referred, perhaps one of the most iniquitous pieces of legislation ever passed by this House.
On a slightly happier note—unfortunately, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar cannot be with us now, for which she apologised in advance, as she had an engagement—we should also remember the special connection between Emily Wilding Davison and this place. On the night of the 1911 census, Emily Wilding Davison, who had come to visit the House during the day, stayed in a broom cupboard attached to the wonderful crypt here. She stayed the whole night—I have looked at that broom cupboard, and it takes some courage to stay in it, even today—so that, the next morning, in the census, she could say that her address was the House of Commons. There is a wonderful plaque commemorating her. I always take visitors to see it, and I urge other hon. Members to do so.
We have come a long way since then, but I recognise that we still have a long way to go. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) put that very well: young women think that it has all been achieved, and it is true that enormous strides have been made, but we must never underestimate the size of the task. Today, most women's work is still underpaid and taken for granted. Women generate more than half of all economic activity in developing countries, but only about a third of their work is currently measured and acknowledged in national accounts.
We also know that there is still a struggle in the UK. Here, women make up nearly half the work force—double the numbers of 25 years ago—and projections still show that, in 10 years' time, there will be 2 million more jobs in the economy, 80 per cent. of which will be filled by women. Of course, the pay gap, although it is much reduced—it was 37 per cent. in 1970—still stands stubbornly at 19 per cent. In every women's debate, when we talk about equal pay and the gender pay gap, we should remember, particularly this year, the enormous contribution of Barbara Castle, who was such an inspirational figure to all of us, and, I would suggest, to women on both sides of the House.
The causes of the pay gap are many: occupational, segregation, the time that women take out to look after children, and even travel patterns. It is not an issue that the Government can tackle alone, and we need to work in partnership with employers, trade unions and other organisations to do it. Last year, we launched the Castle awards to give recognition to employers who are working to address equal pay. We are trying, as a Government, to put our own house in order. We told Departments and agencies to conduct an equal pay
1038
audit and prepare action plans to close the gaps. I know that many in the private sector are doing the same. In April, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women will introduce an equal pay questionnaire to help applicants get the information that they need before they decide whether to take a claim to a tribunal. We are also looking at ourselves as an employer and trying to increase the number of women in the senior civil service. As a result, women now occupy 25 per cent. of the senior posts, compared to 17 per cent. five years ago. We are well on the way to our target of 35 per cent. by 2005. We have also set up schemes in which senior women civil servants mentor more junior women in post. That is important.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) mentioned mainstreaming, which is an important issue. For the very first time, we have agreed gender targets as part of the annual public service agreements that Departments reach with the Treasury.
The extremely important issue of child care was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). It is right to say that if we want to create equality in the workplace, we must look at some of the barriers that stand in the way of women returning to work. We have a Government strategy to expand child care, especially in the most disadvantaged areas. There is a tremendous disparity in the provision of child care in the prosperous and the most deprived areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate was right to talk about the expense of child care in London. Our aim is to create places to accommodate 1.6 million children by 2004, and so far more than 1 million children have benefited. Of course, I do not underestimate the size of the task. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove mentioned Ofsted inspections and registration. We will look at inspection arrangements and, where possible, streamline procedures so that we can make them the best that we possibly can.
We also need to make flexible working more possible—as politicians, we are the worst exponents of it. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley). We need to think about the balance between our work and our domestic and family life. We are good at preaching about it as politicians, but not so good at doing something about it. We have a terrible culture in this country of presenteeism. People think that we are not doing our job properly if we are not working all the hours of the day and night. In some other European Union countries people think that if their colleagues are at work for all those hours, they must not be very good at their job. But if we are not there with the jacket behind the chair, people think that we are no good. Flexible working is important and therefore we have legislated so that from April this year employers will have to consider seriously requests to work flexibly from employees—fathers as well as mothers—with children under six or disabled children under 18. That is an achievement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has championed.
So we have to look at the way in which we balance work with our family life. This is not just an agenda for women; it is an agenda for men. Many men in our society want to be active parents and to play a part in their children's lives. It is an agenda that will be increasingly popular.

1039
The importance of women in political life was also raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). We have made progress in the House, but there is still a great deal to do. There are currently 118 women Members of Parliament—a slight drop from 1997, when there were 120. I am pleased that hon. Members today recognise the Government's steps to legislate in this direction. I look forward to seeing what other political parties will do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) mentioned the achievements of the National Assembly for Wales. She was right: it is remarkable what has been achieved and it is a tribute to devolution. The emphasis on working hours and family-friendly policies is something that we in this place could try to emulate.
The hon. Member for Romsey mentioned women in public life. We have driven that campaign forward, and we are already seeing the fruits of that. I know of some women who have come forward for public appointment. The hon. Lady asked what follow-up work would be done. Research work is being done by officials in the women and equality unit, and practical work is being done in partnership with the Women's National Commission. I hope that the hon. Lady will applaud that sustained effort.
In today's debate, there has been a great deal of discussion of domestic violence. The issue was raised in speeches and interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), the hon. Member for Maidenhead, my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), for Keighley, for Cardiff, North and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove.
Domestic violence is a major blot on our society. The figures are shocking. Each time one looks at them, they are striking. Every three days, a woman is killed as a result of domestic violence. Violence against women accounts for nearly a quarter of all violent crime in this country. If there were statistics showing that men were dying in such numbers, there would be a national outcry
1040
and it would be on the front pages. It would not be seen as a men's issue; it would be seen as a national outrage—which is what the present situation is.
Sandra Gidley: It has recently come to my attention that statistics for domestic violence are not collected separately by police forces. Will the hon. Lady do all that she can to ensure that we can have a more accurate picture from police force to police force?
Mrs. Roche: Some thought is being given to that issue. More than we do at present, we have to disaggregate the figures for grievous bodily harm or actual bodily harm, for example.
A great deal of work is being done. I have recently announced help to set up a national refuge helpline, and extra money is going into refuges. We are also getting people to speak out against domestic violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North spoke about the good work that is being done with trade unions. It was important that the Prime Minister launched the initiative on refuges, and that Digby Jones of the CBI and John Monks of the TUC have spoken out on the importance of dealing with domestic violence. We need prominent men to talk about the horror of domestic violence. That has to happen more and more.
I welcome the support that there has been for further proposals that the Government may introduce. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar spoke about women and the criminal justice system; and the hon. Member for Worthing, West spoke about gender in the criminal justice system. The hon. Lady spoke about rape and we have published a joint report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service. There are real concerns about falling conviction rates and high attrition rates.
Excellent points were made about the important and serious issue of female genital mutilation; and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South made an important speech about transsexuals.
It is difficult to do justice to all the contributions that have been made this afternoon. This is one of the best debates that we have had on international women's day. I congratulate everybody and look forward to next year's debate, hoping that we have the same incredibly high standard.
It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Gurkha Regiment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
6 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: First, may I thank Mr. Speaker for selecting this debate for the Adjournment?
I wish to set the context in which I am raising the subject of conditions of service for personnel in the Gurkha Regiment. Mr. Justice Sullivan published a ruling on 21 February in which he addressed many issues, most of which I shall not raise in my speech. However, he said that the Ministry of Defence should review certain aspects of the conditions of service for personnel. In fact, I had applied unsuccessfully for this Adjournment debate for some weeks before Mr. Justice Sullivan's ruling. My concerns do not arise directly from that case or from the recent failed action on behalf of the Gurkhas.
My concerns arise from a conversation that I had not with Gurkhas but with British officers when I visited 36 Engineer Regiment, which is in my constituency and has a substantial Gurkha attachment. I went there on my annual visit after the Remembrance day service to have one of its splendid Gurkha curry lunches. While I was there, I was appalled to be told of some of the conditions that apply to Gurkhas. That determined me to try to raise the issue in the House.
The Minister may be relieved to learn that I do not intend to rehearse yet again the issue of Gurkha pensions. I want to consider two other aspects of their conditions of service. The Gurkhas are much respected, and I know that from my experience of the regiment in Maidstone. I know that there is huge public affection for them. Each time they parade on a ceremonial occasion in Maidstone, they are warmly received. The public would be appalled if they knew about some of the conditions that we inflict on the Gurkhas.
I turn first to the conditions that govern the accompaniment of married Gurkhas by their families. Gurkhas below the rank of colour sergeant—that is, 90 per cent. of them—are not allowed to have their families with them for all but three out of 15 years service. That provision does not go back to the mists of time and it has not accidentally been left there. In July 1997, a review resulted in the introduction of "married accompanied service" for Gurkhas serving in the United Kingdom, which stated that a quarter of married Gurkhas could be accompanied by their wives and families at any given time.
In reality, not even a quarter benefit from that privilege. Colour sergeants and those in the ranks above—I have already said that they account for 10 per cent. of Gurkhas—may have their wives and families with them permanently. Therefore the quarter has to be distributed among them, as well as among the rest. Only 15 per cent. of serving Gurkhas who are not above the rank of colour sergeant have their families with them at any given time. So for 12 years of their service, they are not allowed to have their families with them.
The Minister will doubtless point out that Gurkhas have five months' long leave every three years. If my arithmetic is correct, that means that they get about
1042
20 months' long leave during their period of service. So there is familial separation, enforced by the rules, of more than 10 years. It ill behoves the House to let that continue when MPs have just made such a song and dance about having half-term leave so that they can be with their families; yet we expect people who are serving our country to put up with more than 10 years' separation from their families. Furthermore, that precious five months' long leave is often shortened to two months because of the exigencies of the service. In addition, during those five months when the Gurkhas are in Nepal, they are paid less because they do not get the Gurkha universal addition.
So strictly is that unforgivable rule applied that surplus married accommodation is left empty rather than increasing the number of Gurkhas who might have their wives with them at any given time. Even when Gurkha children are born in this country and are therefore British, their parents cannot apply to stay in the UK after retirement. On proof that the parents are settled in Nepal, one parent can accompany the child to the UK, but only until it is 12, when either both go back or the child is left here alone.
All that is against a background of a proud history of service to Britain on the part of the Gurkhas. There are 26 Victoria Crosses in the Gurkha regiment, 13 of them won by Gurkhas. They have fought in almost every conflict since world war two. They were in the Falklands, Iraq, East Timor and Sierra Leone. At this very moment, as we sit here surveying what is a disgraceful state of affairs, they are in Kuwait, waiting to shed blood in the fight against one of the nastiest tyrants in history. How do we show our gratitude? With a P45 and a one-way ticket to Nepal.
After 15 years of serving this country Gurkhas cannot stay here even if they have British children. But how many Gurkhas are we talking about? Would they flood the immigration system? Would it cause chaos if we let them stay? No. In any given year, between 200 and 250 Gurkhas retire after 15 years' service. They are well trained, well disciplined and dutiful. They are exactly the sort of people we would usually welcome. Some 110,000 asylum seekers came to this country last year. Many of them will be allowed to stay by default because they will not be removed even though their applications are refused. Yet we sternly resist the claims of 200 to 250 people who have rendered sterling service to this country.
If anyone else had been in this country for 15 years, we would grant them naturalisation, but it is rare for a Gurkha to achieve that. So they are sent back to Nepal when most of them are still in their 30s. They have the rest of their adult life before them, but there is not exactly a glut of jobs in undeveloped rural Nepal. Any member of NATO armed forces can lawfully enter the UK upon discharge and can ask to stay here. If a Turkish infantryman can do that, why deny it to the Gurkhas? There is a perception that Gurkha soldiers and pensioners in Nepal are targeted by Maoist terrorists, so some of them will try to return here as asylum seekers. Why do we put them through that when we could simply recognise what they have done for us and grant them leave to stay here on retirement?
The Minister knows that I am not one of those who favours the extravagant language of institutional racism and all the rest of it, and I do not for one moment believe

1043
that the intention behind the provisions is racist, but their effect is undeniable: one group are discriminated against and treated in a way that those serving alongside them are not.
If the matter was reviewed as late as 1997, I am baffled as to how we could allow such a state of affairs to continue. I am aware that Mr. Justice Sullivan has asked that the MOD re-examine the rule for married accommodation. What surprises me is that, knowing that these issues were before the courts, the MOD had not prepared a response in case of just such a ruling. When we may shortly see on our screens Gurkhas in action—on behalf of us, not on behalf of themselves—I should like to think that we might then consider whether we should act immediately to solve the problem.
There is one phrase that Gurkhas probably learn fairly early. It is a phrase much used by the British and much used in the Army: "fair play". I am not asking for extra privileges for the Gurkhas. I am not asking for them to have what others in a similar position do not have. I am asking for them to have basic justice—in other words, fair play.
6.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on securing this debate on an important subject. I am, of course, aware of and wholeheartedly endorse the high esteem in which Gurkhas are held on both sides of the House. I am also aware of the concern frequently expressed by the media and general public about their terms and conditions of service.
Interest is particularly high at present because of recent judicial review proceedings in which seven former Gurkha soldiers made a number of very serious allegations in relation to their employment in the Brigade of Gurkhas. Those ranged from complaints about dress codes to demands for improved pay and pensions. There was also a general accusation about a so-called
"culture of institutional discrimination in the Army in which Gurkhas as a group are systematically given lesser conditions and benefits than other members of the British Army."
In view of the widespread and often inaccurate reporting of the case, I welcome the opportunity to deal with the issues that it raises. Before doing so, I should make it clear that I very much welcome Mr. Justice Sullivan's ruling. I should point out, as he did, that of the 12 original complaints, eight were dropped by the claimants and therefore not pursued in the High Court. All the remaining complaints, which related to Gurkha pay, pension, married accompanied service and education arrangements, were subsequently dismissed. The ruling therefore tends to vindicate our view that, taken as a whole, Gurkha terms and conditions of service are reasonable and fair. I hope it also reassures the House and general public that there is certainly not a culture of institutional discrimination in the Army against Gurkhas, and that any such accusation is wholly without foundation.
Before I explain the thinking behind current Gurkha terms and conditions of service in more detail, perhaps I should take a few moments to explain why successive
1044
Governments have taken the view that Gurkhas are different, and why it is necessary for their terms and conditions to reflect that. Gurkhas have volunteered for British military service since 1815. Their numbers grew throughout the 19th century and large numbers fought with distinction, as the right hon. Lady pointed out, in the old Indian army in both world wars. Throughout this period, Gurkhas established a reputation as loyal, formidable soldiers—a reputation that they rightly enjoy to this day.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that Gurkhas are able to serve in the British Army today only because in 1947, at the time of Indian independence, an agreement was reached with the Governments of India and Nepal to enable four Gurkha regiments to transfer into the British Army. That is known as the tripartite agreement, or TPA. The Brigade of Gurkhas today consists of approximately 3,500 men who serve mainly in the infantry, but also in Gurkha logistics, signals and engineer units, some of which are based in the right hon. Lady's constituency.
One of the original aims of the TPA was to ensure that the Armies of Great Britain and India could recruit and maintain formed Gurkha regiments on an equal basis. It also safeguarded the cultural, religious and national heritage of Gurkha soldiers, in accordance with the wishes of the Nepalese Government. That is because it was important then, as it is now, for Gurkhas not to be seen merely as mercenaries. The TPA linked British Gurkha terms and conditions of service to those of the Indian army, reflecting sensitivities about whether the newly formed Indian army would be able to retain or attract Gurkhas if there was a substantial differential between British Gurkha and Indian army terms and conditions of service. There was also concern about creating a differential in Nepal, where British Gurkha pensioners continued to live alongside fellow citizens who served in the Nepalese and Indian armies.
While I acknowledge that perhaps not all of the principles that underpinned the TPA in 1947 apply today, I must stress that it remains the basic instrument enabling us to recruit Gurkhas. Without it, Nepalese citizens would be classed as aliens for recruiting purposes and would in practice be unable to serve in the British Army. Leaving aside difficulties relating to nationality, if it were not for the TPA, the English language skills of most Gurkha recruits would bar their entry to non-Gurkha units. The Brigade of Gurkhas has a command system that caters for the fact that Nepali is widely spoken and that English is not the first language of its soldiers. It is partly for that reason that Gurkhas serve in formed units.
There are therefore three principles that underpin service in the Brigade of Gurkhas: Gurkhas are recruited in Nepal; they serve in formed Gurkha units; and they are discharged as Nepalese citizens in Nepal. Gurkhas return home with their pension entitlement, which is a vital source of revenue to one of the poorest countries in the world. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that, given the history of the brigade and the unique nature of Gurkha service, it would be irrational if those differences were not taken into account when considering Gurkhas' conditions of employment. Most right hon. and hon. Members are already aware that while Gurkha basic pay continues to be set in accordance with the Indian army pay code, the TPA

1045
allows for a cost of living allowance to be paid for service outside Nepal. For many years, the Ministry of Defence has used that as a tool to enhance remuneration, and since 1997 "Universal Addition" has been paid, broadly aligning Gurkha income to the take-home pay of British personnel.
I shall briefly mention Gurkha pensions, as I received a comprehensive briefing and have enough time to cover the issue. Gurkha pensions, like basic pay, remain linked to the Indian army but have been significantly enhanced. A review in 1981 led to Gurkha pensions being linked to the top band provided for in the Indian army pension regulations. It was also decided that the annual uprating of pensions should be linked to cost of living increases in Nepal, rather than India. An examination of Gurkha pensions in 1999 led to the introduction of welfare-related cash uplifts to take account of Indian Government benefits in kind, such as access to Indian military hospitals, available to Indian army Gurkha pensioners. That increased pension payments for all 26,000 British Gurkha pensioners by at least 100 per cent. Pensions are now set at double the top rate of the Indian army and compare favourably with professional salaries in Nepal. Indeed, our embassy in Kathmandu advises us that a rifleman with 15 years of service now receives a pension higher than the salary of a royal Nepalese army captain.
I should make it clear that we do not link Gurkha pensions to the Indian army solely because of the TPA. There are very good contemporary reasons for maintaining our current policy, not least the fact that we are able to pay immediate pensions to Gurkhas after only 15 years of service. That suits their needs because, unlike the UK, Nepal does not have a sophisticated system of state benefits and support. Gurkha pensions also have to be viewed in the context of Gurkha service in formed units, which have wholly different recruitment and retention patterns from British units. Each year, over 25,000 potential recruits compete for 230 or so places. There is virtually no natural wastage. The result is that 99 per cent. of Gurkhas serve for at least 15 years and are then discharged with an immediate pension. Those arrangements are necessary so that the brigade can maintain its operational edge with a reasonable age and manning balance.
The average length of service for a British soldier, on the other hand, is much lower, and approximately only 8 per cent. of British soldiers serve the full 22 years needed to receive an immediate pension. The armed forces pension scheme is specifically designed so that preserved pensions can be paid to those who have less than 22 years service. If we were to apply those arrangements to Gurkhas, it would result in large numbers of Gurkhas being discharged in Nepal with no financial support until the age of 60. We therefore need separate terms and conditions for them. Most reasonable observers now agree that the arguments for Gurkhas to receive an immediate pension on discharge remain compelling.
Moving away from pay and pension arrangements, it would be right to acknowledge that there is one aspect of Gurkha terms and conditions of service that is very much a cause for concern, and it has been highlighted by the right hon. Lady tonight. I refer to married
1046
accompanied service which, in accordance with the TPA, is capped at 25 per cent. of brigade personnel. In practice, this means that family married quarters are provided for all Gurkhas holding the rank of colour sergeant or above. Below that rank, Gurkhas are entitled to only one accompanied tour of around three years. For many years, the MOD has taken the view that it is necessary to abide by this limit in order to stay within the terms of the TPA and ensure that linkages to Nepal are maintained. The importance of these links cannot be overstated, particularly now that the home base of Gurkhas has moved from the far east to the United Kingdom.
Gurkhas are discharged in Nepal because we have a duty to ensure that they return to their home country. We also have an obligation to ensure that they do not feel that they are returning to a foreign country. It is partly for this reason that Gurkhas are entitled to special periods of five months long leave in Nepal every three years, although I take account of the right hon. Lady's assertion that these tours can sometimes be reduced. This is quite unlike any provision available to British personnel.
The brigade also goes to great lengths to ensure that Gurkha personnel are able to observe key Hindu religious festivals and have access to Hindu temples and priests throughout their service. It is provisions such as these that help the brigade to maintain a distinct Nepalese flavour, ethos and identity. At the same time, and in recognition of the problems that Gurkha accompanied service policy can sometimes cause, Gurkha soldiers who are not on accompanied tours are now able to bring their families to visit them in the UK, albeit at their own expense. All Gurkha units now allow for visits of this kind, and surplus family accommodation is made available wherever possible.
In addressing these matters in the context of the recent judicial review, we will have to take account of the views of the Nepalese Government, who will of course be consulted about the outcome. There may also be implications for the garrison estate in Brunei, given that nearly a quarter of the brigade is stationed there. The MOD also has to bear in mind the potential impact that any changes would have on the effectiveness and utility of the brigade. For example, Gurkhas marry at a younger age than British personnel. They also serve in formed units. Any significant change would, therefore, undoubtedly result in Gurkha units requiring more family accommodation.
So, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. Personally, I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments that the right hon. Lady has put forward. I have tried to stress in my reply to her just how complex the situation is, and that we do not have free and unfettered action available to us because of the terms and conditions of the agreement under which we employ Gurkhas in the British Army. I shall make one or two additional points in which she might be interested. I know that, like many of us, she will be concerned about the situation regarding family accommodation in Maidstone.
Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I should have said earlier that I was delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) in his place, in his

1047
capacity as a member of the Britain-Nepal parliamentary group. Before the Minister reaches his peroration—which I sense is about to happen—I must point out that, so far, he has not addressed the matter that took up about 50 per cent. of my speech, which is the way in which we insist that Gurkhas return to Nepal at the end of their 15 years' service, and whether there is a case for reviewing that.
Dr. Moonie: I thought that I had addressed that issue in some detail, because the thrust of the argument that I thought I was making was that the whole point of maintaining the ethos of Gurkha regiments as Gurkha regiments is to ensure that those who serve are able to return to their own country, as is part of the agreement under which they serve in the British Army in the first place. It is rare for nationals of a country not our own or—as the terms and conditions for enlistment in general would suggest—of the Commonwealth to enlist in our armed forces. It is incumbent on us to be very careful to ensure that the legal niceties are observed. However, I have listened very carefully to what she says about this subject, and I can assure her that I will discuss the matter with my officials and those who represent the Gurkha community to see how much of a problem is caused. Although I do not want to get her spirits up too much—
Miss Widdecombe: Oh!
Dr. Moonie: That is the nature of these things. None the less, I shall see whether any leeway is likely to be available to us. It may often seem that we are rigid—and perhaps even over-rigid—in the criteria that we apply in such cases, but I am generally assured that there are very good reasons for applying them as we do.
Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The key point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was making is that, on the discharge of Gurkhas back in Nepal at the end of their term of service, if they apply subsequently for settlement in the United Kingdom, the Home Office takes absolutely no account whatever in practice either of the value and utility of former British Gurkha soldiers and officers or of their valuable years of service in the British Army when considering those applications.
Dr. Moonie: That is a nice distinction and one that I had not appreciated from what the right hon. Lady said. That is a very different issue and I can assure her that I will take it up with my colleagues, although I again make no promises as to the outcome.
I should like briefly to return to the housing situation, which I know will interest the right hon. Lady. As she knows, although we have made enormous strides over the past few years, much of our service housing remains unsatisfactory. A joint decision has been taken by the Army and the Defence Housing Executive to relocate families and bring to an end a period of uncertainty with regard to 151 1960s houses for other ranks at Maidstone. We are anxious that families currently spread over five locations should be located as close together as possible in the interests of regimental integrity, morale, welfare and operational effectiveness.
1048
It is also important that Gurkha families attached to the regiment continue to be able to exercise traditional customs and procedures while maintaining their strong sense of community. The Army is determined that, when the families eventually move from Invicta park, the same level of community support will provided at Chatham.
What can I say in summary? I have listened very carefully to the right hon. Lady's arguments and I have a great deal of sympathy for them. I am constrained by the terms of the agreement under which we engage Gurkhas in the first place, but I will have an honest look at it and see whether any changes are possible. I can assure her of that and I thank her again for raising this matter in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Six o'clock.

CORRECTION
Division list No. 99,Official Report, Tuesday 4 March 2003, columns 758-61, should read as follows:
The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 415.

Division No. 99]

AYES

Allan, Richard

Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

Barrett, John

Beith, rh A. J.

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Lamb, Norman

Burnett, John

Laws, David(Yeovil)

Burnside, David

Llwyd, Elfyn

Burstow, Paul

Moore, Michael

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Öpik, Lembit

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Price Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Carmichael, Alistair

Chidgey, David

Pugh, Dr. John

Cotter, Brian

Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

Davey, Edward(Kingston)

Rendel, David

Doughty, Sue

Robertson, Angus(Moray)

Ewing, Annabelle

Salmond, Alex

Foster, Don(Bath)

Sanders, Adrian

George, Andrew(St. Ives)

Smvtn' Rev. Martin(Belfast s)

Gidley, Sandra

Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

Green Matthew(Ludlow)

Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

Thurso, John

Thurso, John

Harvey, Nick

Webb, Steve(Northavon)

Heath, David

Weir, Michael

Holmes, Paul

Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

Williams, Roger(Brecon)

Willis, Phil

NOES

Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

Austin, John

Ainger, Nick

Bacon, Richard

Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

Bailey, Adrian

Alexander, Douglas

Baird, Vera

Allen, Graham

Baldry, Tony

Amess, David

Banks, Tony

Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

Barker, Gregory

Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

Barnes, Harry

Baron, John(Billericay)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Barron, rh Kevin

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Battle, John

Atkins, Charlotte

Beard, Nigel

1049

Begg, Miss Anne

David, Wayne

Bellingham, Henry

Davidson, Ian

Benn, Hilary

Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

Bennett, Andrew

Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

Benton, Joe(Bootle)

Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Roger

Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

Best, Harold

Blackman, Liz

Dawson, Hilton

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dean, Mrs Janet

Blizzard, Bob

Denham, rh John

Blunt, Crispin

Dhanda, Parmjit

Boswell, Tim

Dismore, Andrew

Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

Dobson, rh Frank

Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Bradshaw, Ben

Doran, Frank

Brady, Graham

Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

Brazier, Julian

Drown, Ms Julia

Brennan, Kevin

Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Browning, Mrs Angela

Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

Bryant, Chris

Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

Buck, Ms Karen

Edwards, Huw

Burden, Richard

Efford, Clive

Burns, Simon

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Burt, Alistair

Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

Byers, rh Stephen

Evans, Nigel

Cairns, David

Fabricant, Michael

Cameron, David

Fallon, Michael

Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

Farrelly, Paul

Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

Caplin, Ivor

Casale, Roger

Fisher, Mark

Cash, William

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Caton, Martin

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

Flight, Howard

Challen, Colin

Flook, Adrian

Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

Forth, rh Eric

Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

Foster, rh Derek

Foster, Michael(Worcester)

Chaytor, David

Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

Chope, Christopher

Clapham, Michael

Fox, Dr. Liam

Clappison, James

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

Francois, Mark

Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Gardiner, Barry

Garnier, Edward

Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

Gerrard, Neil

Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Clelland, David

Gilroy, Linda

Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

Godsiff, Roger

Coaker, Vernon

Goggins, Paul

Coffey, Ms Ann

Goodman, Paul

Cohen, Harry

Gray, James(N Wilts)

Coleman, Iain

Grayling, Chris

Collins, Tim

Green, Damian(Ashford)

Colman, Tony

Greenway, John

Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

Grieve, Dominic

Cooper, Yvette

Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

Cousins, Jim

Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

Cran, James(Beverley)

Grogan, John

Crausby, David

Gummer, rh John

Cruddas, Jon

Hain, rh Peter

Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

Cummings, John

Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

Hammond, Philip

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Dalyell, Tam

Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

Hawkins, Nick

1050

Hayes, John(S Holland)

Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

Healey, John

Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

McAvoy, Thomas

Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

McCabe, Stephen

Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Hendrick, Mark

MacDonald, Calum

Hendry, Charles

McDonnell, John

Hepburn, Stephen

MacDougall, John

Heppell, John

McFall, John

Hesford, Stephen

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Heyes, David

McIsaac, Shona

Hill, Keith(Streatham)

Mackay, rh Andrew

Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

McKenna, Rosemary

Hodge, Margaret

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

McNulty, Tony

Hope, Phil(Corby)

McWalter, Tony

Hopkins, Kelvin

McWilliam, John

Horam, John(Orpington)

Mahmood, Khalid

Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Malins Humfrey

Mallaber, Judy

Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

Mann John(Bassetlaw)

Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

Maples John

Mgrris Rob(Wolvern'ton sw)

Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

Marshall Jim(Leicester s)

Humble Mrs Joan

Martlew, Eric

Hunter Andrew

Mates, Michael

Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Hutton, rh John

Mercer, Patrick

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Michael, rh Alun

Illsley, Eric

Miliband, David

Ingram, rh Adam

Miller, Andrew

Jack, rh Michael

Moffatt, Laura

Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

Mole, Chris

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

Morgan, Julie

Jamieson, David

Moss, Malcolm

Jenkin, Bernard

Mudie, George

Johnson, Boris(Henley)

Mullin, Chris

Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatefield)

Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Jowell, rh Tessa

O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

O'Hara, Edward

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Olner' Bill

Keen, Alan(Feltham)

Osborne, George(Tatton)

Keen, Ann(Brentford)

Owen, Albert

Kelly, Ruth(Bo/ton W)

Page, Richard

Key, Robert(Salisbury)

Paice, James

Khabra, Piara S.

Palmer, Dr Nick

Kilfoyle, Peter

Picking, Anne

King, Andy(Rugby)

Pickthall, Colin

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Plaskitt, James

Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

Pollard, Kerry

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

Lammy, David

Portillo, rh Michael

Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

Pound, Stephen

Lazarowicz, Mark

Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

Leigh, Edward

Leslie, Christopher

Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

Prosser, Gwyn

Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

Purchase, Ken

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Quin, rh Joyce

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Quinn, Lawrie

Lilley, rh Peter

Rammell, Bill

Linton, Martin

Randall, John

Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

Loughton, Tim

Raynsford, rh Nick

Love, Andrew

Redwood, rh John

Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

1051

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

Shipley, Ms Debra

Simmonds, Mark

Robathan, Andrew

Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

Singh, Marsha

Skinner, Dennis

Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Smith, John(Glamorgan)

Rooney, Terry

Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

Rosindell, Andrew

Soames, Nicholas

Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

Soley, Clive

Ruane, Chris

Southworth, Helen

Ruffley, David

Spellar, rh John

Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

Spring, Richard

Sarwar, Mohammad

Stanley, rh Sir John

Savidge, Malcolm

Steen, Anthony

Sawford, Phil

Steinberg, Gerry

Sayeed, Jonathan

Stevenson, George

Sedgemore, Brian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Selous, Andrew

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Shaw, Jonathan

Streeter, Gary

Sheerman, Barry

Stringer, Graham

Shepherd, Richard

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Sheridan, Jim

Sutcliffe, Gerry

1052

Swayne, Desmond

Ward, Claire

Syms, Robert

Wareing, Robert N.

Tami, Mark(Alyn)

Waterson, Nigel

Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

Watkinson, Angela

Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

Watts, David

Taylor, Ian(Esher)

White, Brian

Taylor, John(Solihull)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Whittingdale, John

Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

wicks, Malcolm

Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Timms, Stephen

Wiggin, Bill

Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

Wilshire, David

Trendinnick, David

Wilson, Brian

Trickett, Jon

Winnick, David

Truswell, Paul

Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

Truner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

Turner, Neil(Wigan)

Woodward, Shaun

Twigg, Derek(Halton)

Woolas, Phil

Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

Tyrie, Andrew

Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

Wright, David(Telford)

Walley, Ms Joan

Wright, Tony(Cannock)

Walter, Robert

Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

Young, rh Sir George

Question accordingly negatived.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Election Turnouts
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): I welcome this chance to discuss the important issue of increasing voter turnout, particularly through weekend voting. It is useful to debate those issues, because we have recently closed the consultation on weekend voting and combining the local and European elections in 2004. We have not yet considered all the responses to that consultation paper, nor have we taken any decisions on the way forward. We thought it right to give hon. Members the chance to debate some of the issues before any decisions were taken.
Mr. William Cash: I am sure that the Minister has anticipated what I am about to say. She said that she hoped that we would have a chance to discuss this matter, but she will recall that we discussed many of the same issues only a few weeks ago on 28 January, so I hope that some of my comments during that debate have been taken into account and that she will refer to them on this occasion; she did not do so at the time.
Yvette Cooper: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we always treat seriously the points that he makes in every debate.
It is right to give hon. Members the chance to debate this matter, particularly some of the issues concerning weekend voting and combining the elections in 2004, which we did not concentrate on in our debate at the end of January. That thoughtful and interesting debate about voter participation was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan).
Voter turnout has been falling, and compared with 15 years ago, millions more people are choosing not to vote. Since the mid-1980s, the number of people who vote has dropped by more than 5 million. At the last general election, 6.2 million fewer votes were cast than in 1987, when I first cast my vote, and the percentage of the electorate voting fell from 75 per cent. in 1987 to 59 per cent. in 2001. In the most recent European elections, 5.1 million more people stayed at home compared with the 1989 European elections, and in the local elections turnout dropped by around 2 million from 1986 to 2002.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Has the Minister given any thought to why there was such a dramatic drop in turnout for the most recent European elections? Does she recall her right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary, saying that as a result of his introducing a system of proportional representation he expected the turnout to
320WH
rise significantly? In fact, it fell. Can the hon. Lady explain why the then Home Secretary's prediction was so wrong?
Yvette Cooper: There are a series of reasons why voter turnout falls, and I shall come to that subject later. In the debate at the end of January we discussed some of the issues concerning proportional representation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that many people have suggested that proportional representation might increase voter turnout, and the European elections were an example of the PR system. Some supporters of that system are here now, so many of the issues may be raised this afternoon.
Many of the issues related to the turnout at the European elections are complicated, and not determined simply by the particular electoral system in place. It is interesting that there is no consensus at this stage on the reason for a drop in voter turnout. Such drops have happened in many western industrialised countries, and a range of theories have been offered by academics, journalists and politicians to explain why that has happened. Many traditional theories assumed that as populations became more educated, and had more information, voter turnout would increase, but that has not been the case. Theories about declining social identification, changes to social structure, a decline in deference and generational differences abound. There are also theories relating to political party behaviour; some argue that politics is too confrontational, and that is why people do not vote; others argue that politics needs to be more confrontational, and that we need more public rows to provoke people into voting.
There are also theories about the specific circumstances of the last general election and the expectations that surrounded it, such as whether it was perceived to have been a foregone conclusion. It is too early to say exactly what happened at that election, or what the different causes for the turnout were; it is too early to be clear whether we are looking at long-term trends or fluctuations. However, we cannot afford to wait until it is perfectly clear why voter turnout has been falling; if we wait, turnout may have fallen to the point at which the health of our democracy is seriously undermined.
Three challenges face us in addressing voter turnout. The first is the challenge for political parties, which is extremely important because parties are the vehicle by which people exercise their vote, campaign and conduct debate throughout the country. Political parties and politicians need to accept responsibility for the changes that are taking place, and they must address them. However, that is not the main subject of the debate this afternoon.
The second challenge is for the wider society and institutions to promote greater awareness, and to support voter education and a stronger sense of citizenship. I include in that the promotion of citizenship education in schools, and the role of the Electoral Commission in promoting information about elections, democracy and our political institutions.
Mr. Cash: The Minister will appreciate that one thing that causes people a great deal of concern is broken

321WH
promises. I shall not engage in a cheap exchange, because one side can say as much as the other, but does the Minister not agree that if the Electoral Commission and others are to engage in voter education through schools, it is terribly important for them to be conscious of the huge responsibility to make certain that that education is unbiased and meets the criteria of a democratic society.
Yvette Cooper: The purpose of setting up the Electoral Commission in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was to establish an independent organisation, separate from political parties and the Government, to promote voter information and education throughout the country in a non-party political, non-partisan fashion. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to get into party political discussions, so I shall point out that the Opposition's weakness at the general election and their failure to offer clear alternatives to the voter had a significant impact on turnout.
Today we should concentrate on how we can make voting more convenient, and make it fit into people's lives, but no one should assume that convenience is a panacea for raising voter turnout, or that it is the whole answer. Some of the trials significantly raised voter turnout, and it is therefore right that we should explore ways in which we can make voting fit into people's lives so that they exercise their democratic rights.
The recently closed consultation canvassed the ideas associated with holding elections at the weekend. We should explore weekend elections, and have views on the idea. Unlike most of our European counterparts, this country has historically voted on a Thursday, but it is unclear why we have become so committed to that particular day of the week. The folklore is that the original reasons for choosing a Thursday involved a process of elimination. Sunday was no good because voters might be influenced by the sermon. Monday was too close to Sunday, and a persuasive priest might still hold sway. Tuesday and Wednesday were market days, while Friday was pay-day, which meant that voters might be influenced by alcohol. On Saturday they might still be drinking, or might be too hung over to vote. As a result, Thursday was the only day far enough away from the influence of both pulpit and publican, so that is the day on which people were trusted to cast their votes.
An international study by the Chicago election board in 1999 found that of the 34 countries studied, three quarters held elections on a Sunday. Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden and Finland all hold at least some of their elections on a Sunday, and their turnout levels are generally higher than ours. However, one cannot use that evidence alone, and one cannot make simple comparisons between one country and another. Recent academic work by Mark Franklin, which attempts to address some of the other factors, found that in a range of countries, voting on a rest day— in this country, that would be over the weekend—has a significant positive impact on turnout.
322WH
It is not too hard to see why that might be the case, because for people who work and have kids, or lead some other sort of busy life, voting on a busy Thursday can be a hassle, and it should not be a hassle for people to exercise their democratic rights.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: People who work and have kids will almost certainly have some form of child care for their children while they are working, but that will not be the case on a Saturday. In the light of the contradictory comments that the Minister made about how, rather disappointingly, the more educated people become the less likely they are to vote, can she see that kind of contradiction in her argument? A Saturday election would be detrimental for working mothers with children.
Yvette Cooper: No, I do not think so. If we held elections over Saturday and Sunday, arguably people would have considerably more time in which to make appropriate arrangements, or to take their children to the voting booth. The case should not rest on a specific example: we can all imagine the people who rush to pick up their children at the end of nursery school or school and then struggle to get out to vote in the evening. Equally, Thursday might be more convenient for people who work shifts or weekends.
The question is what is likely to have the broadest impact on the greatest number of people by making voting more convenient. Mark Franklin's evidence, which we should take seriously, suggests that voting on a rest day could increase turnout. The consultation specified that weekend voting would mean both Saturday and Sunday, so as to recognise religious concerns, but we need to know people's views about weekend voting. We must also recognise that the only pilot that has been carried out on weekend voting, in Watford, was not successful; interestingly, voter turnout fell. However, the people of Watford voted the weekend after the Thursday on which everyone else voted. When the nationwide election results had already appeared in the Friday and Saturday papers, setting out the local elections as a done deal, everyone in Watford was expected to go out to vote. It is interesting to ask, therefore, whether pilots on weekend voting can be successful in small areas, when people in other areas still vote on different days.
We must also take account of cost. Weekend voting, in direct terms, is likely to be more expensive, especially if it is held over two days. It involves the higher costs of staff working at the weekend. On the other hand, an awful lot of schools would not have to close for the day, with all the hassle that that can create. There are mixed issues surrounding weekend voting, so we think it right to consult and take people's views before deciding on the way forward.
Personally, I am inclined to think that there is a case for further trials, perhaps as part of a programme, and on a much larger scale than the Watford example. We need to hear the House's views, however, and we need people to consider and debate the issues. The European elections might be the right elections in which to trial weekend voting, given that the other countries are voting in their elections at the weekend; but we must recognise the considerable logistic and practical problems to be overcome if weekend voting is to be introduced in time for the 2004 European elections.

323WH
The case for making voting more convenient, however we do that, is strong. I have concentrated so far on weekend voting, but various trials are already under way for different approaches to voting in pilot programmes across the country. It is worth reflecting on the progress made in those trials, and on the next wave of pilots. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister leads the programme of pilots for local authority elections, and there have been a series of pilots on postal voting, e-voting and other mechanisms. The results in the all-postal vote pilots have been the most significant. Average turnout in the pilot areas was considerably higher than in the country as a whole. In Crawley the turnout rose from 19 per cent. to 34 per cent. In Gateshead it rose from 30 per cent. to 57 per cent., in North Tyneside from 36 per cent. to 42 per cent., in Stevenage from 29 per cent. to 53 per cent., and in Chorley from 32 per cent. to 62 per cent. Those all-postal ballots had a considerable impact on voter turnout.
Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister has pointed out what happened in the postal votes, but can I point out what happens in my constituency, which covers two local councils? In Amber Valley, which has elections every year, the turnout is very poor, but in Derbyshire Dales, which has elections every four years, the turnout is significantly better. Does she think that there is anything to be said for the idea that people are getting a bit fed up with continually having elections forced on them?
Yvette Cooper: There is evidence that reduced frequency of voting can be correlated with higher voter turnout. A balance has to be struck between achieving the right level of accountability to the public and to voters—giving them the opportunity to vote often enough to maintain accountability—and maintaining turnout. Those are complex issues. That is why we have asked the Electoral Commission to examine the issues surrounding the timing and frequency of elections.
Mr. Cash: I was slightly worried that the Minister might not have read what I said in our previous debate, and she has just given a good illustration of why I was right to worry. She has mentioned the experience in Chorley, and on 28 January I said that:
"in Chorley, electronic counting was piloted, and turnout increased from 31.3 per cent. in 1998 to 61.5 per cent. in 2002. However, the same system was used in City of Westminster, and turnout dropped from 32 per cent. in 1998, to 27.4 per cent. in 2002. It is extraordinary that the same system doubles turnout in Chorley but decreases it in City of Westminster."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 239WH.]
She did not answer that question before. Can she answer it now?
Yvette Cooper: The Westminster pilot was an e-counting pilot. The all-postal pilots—Crawley, Gateshead, Greenwich, Havering, Middlesbrough, North Tyneside, North West Leicestershire, Preston, Stevenage and Trafford—did not involve separate counting methods, and all showed a significant increase in turnout.
Mr. Cash: What about Chorley?
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I also mentioned Chorley. Chorley held an all-postal and e-counting pilot. Chorley, Hackney and South Tyneside all had all-postal and e-counting pilots. Turnout in Chorley and South Tyneside increased but Hackney, which had an e-counting and all-postal pilot, experienced a 3 per cent. decrease. The e-counting pilots included Broxbourne, Epping Forest, Rugby and Westminster. That was a different group of pilots, of which Westminster was the only one of the four that showed a reduction. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that results have been varied, but overall the Electoral Commission, which assessed all the pilots independently, concluded that the all-postal pilots had a significant impact in increasing voter turnout.
Concerns about issues such as fraud and voter identification have been raised in relation to all-postal ballots. We should take those concerns seriously, and address them. In its report on the first wave of pilots, the Electoral Commission said that it could find no evidence of widespread fraud, or problems of voter identification. Nevertheless, we should take the possibility seriously, which is why the commission recommended further pilots of the all-postal vote approach, which we have accepted.
Mr. Richard Allan: Is the Minister also considering the other factor that remains of concern with all forms of remote voting, whether postal or electronic, which is that electoral law requires us to ensure that voters can vote free from coercion and undue influence? That is clearly difficult when voting takes place at a remote location. Is that point being considered? In some ways it is more significant than the issue of fraud.
Yvette Cooper: It is embedded in the Human Rights Act 1998 that we should have free and fair elections, and it is important that we can be sure that they are taking place. As the hon. Gentleman says, we must be able to ensure that people can make their own choices free from undue interference or improper influence. We already, rightly, accept the principle of postal votes for those who choose to have them.
The solution that some have suggested to the problem that the hon. Gentleman raises is a multi-channel election. People would be able to choose to vote through one of many different routes. They would be able to vote with a postal vote or by going into a polling station. Our broad interest is in the idea of a multi-channel election being introduced in the future, which would give people options. The debate is not yet closed on that. We need to keep debating and discussing it as the pilots go on.
Mr. David Drew: In Stroud we have an e-voting and a texting pilot, which is as it should be. We should experiment with such methods. My worry is about what we mean by choice. That is all fine for those who have different ways of accessing the electoral system, but there will be others who have a limited choice. That could be overcome only through postal balloting, which seems to be the most successful alternative method. When the Minister evaluates the situation, will she consider how many people genuinely

325WH
can make such choices? We cannot have discrimination in favour of people who are IT-literate and have access to the relevant means, and against people who do not.
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. That idea affects not only voting but all kinds of areas in which we try to deliver services, opportunities or information through new technology. We must not introduce a different form of exclusion, whereby those who cannot get access to information technology cannot get access to a service. When we are talking about the right to vote, that is more important and fundamental than in any other context, so clearly it is a consideration.
My hon. Friend raises a broader point about turnout, which is that people who are on the lowest incomes, have the least education or come from particular minority ethnic groups are the least likely to vote. That is a troubling fact for democracy. The issue is not simply the overall turnout; it is the differential turnout between different groups. Clearly, that should have a serious impact on anyone who is concerned to ensure that everyone has an equal right to vote and an equal chance for their voice to be heard.
The postal ballot pilots have already demonstrated that there appears to be a significant willingness to vote so long as it is easy, and that that willingness is greater than the actual number of votes being cast under the existing system. As long as that is the case, that means that there are people who would vote if it was easy, or if the opportunity was there, who are not currently voting and are therefore not having their voices heard in a democracy, or being counted when it is decided who should represent them and take decisions on their behalf. That is a serious matter, and means that even for those who oppose all-postal votes, there are serious issues that need to be addressed. We cannot simply accept the current position.
I know that many Members want the chance to speak, so I will make my conclusion brief. There will be a further series of 59 electoral pilots in this year's May elections—nearly double the number held last year. They will include e-voting pilots, most of which will offer a range of e-voting channels, including remote voting via the internet, text messaging, touch-tone telephones and, for the first time, interactive digital television. The pilots will be the biggest ever test of e-voting in the UK.
We have also concluded the consultation on combining the European parliamentary elections with the local elections in 2004. That reflects the point made by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) about not asking people to turn out to vote too many times in a short period. Members' views would be welcome before the Government take a final decision on whether the elections in 2004 should be combined on the same day.
Declining turnout is clearly one of the biggest challenges faced not simply by political parties but by all those who care about democracy. We are here this afternoon as democratically elected representatives. We stand where for centuries elected representatives before us have stood to debate the concerns of the nation. Of course, most of our predecessors were not elected by the
326WH
whole nation that they purported to represent. Many of us will have taken constituents to the little cupboard at the back of the Crypt, at the other end of the main Westminster Hall building, where, as the story goes, the suffragette Emily Davison hid in the Palace of Westminster on the night of the 1911 census so that, at a time when women were not allowed to vote, she could record her address that night as the House of Commons.
Votes for women, and for all men, were hard fought for and hard won. Emily Davison threw herself in front of the king's horse to draw attention to her case, yet four generations later, millions of women are not using the vote that Emily Davison died fighting for. Our political institutions depend on the legitimacy of the ballot box. As the ballot box gets lighter, the legitimacy of our political institutions becomes weaker. Most importantly, when turnout declines too far, antidemocratic movements and parties can more easily step into the void. None of us should kid ourselves that there are any easy answers to raising voter turnout.
Mr. Cash: I have listened to the Minister's peroration with great interest, but I am bound to reflect on the fact that only yesterday the Budget date was shifted, which is bound to affect the Welsh and Scottish elections, not to mention others. Can she equate that with her espousal of democratic procedures?
Yvette Cooper: For heaven's sake! That is not remotely relevant to the important issues that we are discussing. The judgment about the timing of the Budget must be made according to many considerations, but it has nothing to do with voter turnout. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to make cheap party political points, because Westminster Hall was intended to be a forum for more considered debate that may, on many issues, cut across party lines. The issues related to voter turnout should concern any democrat, whatever their political party or affiliation. If we are concerned about democracy, we should work hard to address them.
3.1 pm
Sir George Young: There is much in the Minister's excellent speech with which we can all agree. Part of it might have been made on the Floor of the House. The moving bit about women getting the vote might have been said by her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women, who has been speaking in the Chamber today in the debate on international women's day. I am grateful to the Minister who is here with us for making available the speech that she gave last month to the Association of Electoral Administrators—although I suspect that it was written on a word processor, as chunks of it reappeared in a very similar form in the speech that we have just heard.
I suppose that it makes sense for the Lord Chancellor's Department to have responsibility for elections, but that responsibility seems to move around somewhat. It used to be with the Home Office, then with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and it is now with one of the few Departments that does not have an elected Minister at its head.
My contribution will be fairly brief, because I see that there are some serious psephologists in Westminster Hall this afternoon. The Minister gave several reasons

327WH
why turnout dipped at the last general election, to which I would add just one. As the two major parties are closer together than they have been for some 40 years, many voters, as well as thinking that the election was a foregone conclusion, genuinely thought that it would not actually make much difference who won it. Indeed, some Labour MPs believe that the Prime Minister is at heart a Conservative, so the wider electorate might be excused for making the same mistake.
The European election was touched on earlier, and I believe that the adoption of a multi-member proportional representation system did have an effect. People prefer to vote for a face, not a list, and the election of Members for a large amorphous region such as the south-east somehow lacked the relevance and immediacy of an election of one Member for a smaller parliamentary constituency. The mechanics of elections, to which I shall return in a moment, can influence turnout.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I agree with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. He may recall that Liberal Democrats—and, I believe, some of his party—argued strongly that we should have either open lists or smaller constituencies and a single transferable vote, which to some extent would have overcome the disadvantage to which he refers. It is important not to brand all PR systems as identical.
Sir George Young: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I believe that people prefer to vote for one person—a face—rather than a list of people. That should be an important component of a successful electoral system.
The Minister spoke about declining turnout and voter apathy, which must concern all of us. In some cases, disenchantment with the main parties manifests itself in the election of independents, and Wyre Forest showed what can happen when an MP does not get on top of an important local issue. I regard such election results as worrying but healthy. Too many independents in the House would obviously lead to problems in delivering a coherent political programme, but if there are a few—and the threat of more—that keeps us on our toes. We have seen that with independent mayors in London, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough. It is more worrying, and less healthy, when people turn to parties that really are nasty, such as the British National party and the National Front. The best answer to that is for the mainstream parties to show that they have sensible policies to manage the issues that worry people.
For many people, the solution to disenchantment is simply not to vote. I remember that when I first went out canvassing people were reluctant to admit that they were not going to vote, and found all sorts of reasons to conceal the fact. People are now open about it. Only 39 per cent. of 18 to 25-year-olds voted at the last general election, and the British social attitudes survey in 1999 showed that only one in 10 of that age group considered themselves "quite interested" or "very interested" in politics. For some of those young people, not voting has become part of a culture, and a statement that they are at arm's length from the democratic process. They will sign petitions and engage in single issue politics, and they are interested in what happens locally, but in the fast-moving, consumer-based society in which they live,
328WH
which gives them relevant choices and instant results, voting once every four years for a remote assembly is old fashioned.
There is no point in blaming those young people. They are perfectly entitled not to vote, and for many it is a conscious decision. They simply do not like what is on offer—so we must ask why they are not voting. There are two responses. One addresses the mechanics of voting, including Sunday voting and voting by text message. The other response concerns the motivation for voting, and that is by far the most important. Most people do not vote not because it is inconvenient, or because they do not have the time. They do not vote because they do not want to vote.
There are all sorts of theories for that, and the Minister advanced some of her own. I will mention another. The Hansard Society sponsored a meeting at my party's last conference; similar meetings were also held at the other two party conferences. At it, the makers of "Big Brother" explained why more people voted for Kate Lawler in the third series of "Big Brother" than voted at the past general election. They pointed out that the two houses involved had some similarities. They are both difficult to get into—150,000 applied for "Big Brother"—and both houses are filled by media-seeking self-publicists.
However, the short answer to the question about why one captured the imagination of the British nation and the other did not was simple. Viewers empathised with the contestants in "Big Brother" because they behaved like human beings. They spoke the same language and had the same problems and emotions, and viewers found it easier to relate to them. They find it difficult to relate to us because we do not seem to live in the same world as they do. There is also an opportunity for interaction and involvement with "Big Brother", and there may be lessons for Parliament about making it more interactive and relevant.
On that theme, the former editor of "Newsnight", Sian Kevill, said that:
"people see politics and political coverage as being mainly about white, middle-class middle-aged men being badgered by other white, middle-aged middle-class men in a secret shared language. It is a symbol of an apparent new political divide: it is no longer left and right; it's now us and them."
There is a message in that for all Members of Parliament. We need to consider what we can do as individual MPs to re-engage people and get on the same wavelength. We could start by recognising that our opponents get some things right and we get some things wrong. We should also recognise that there is little appetite for conventional adversarial politics. I think that we should change the format of Prime Minister's questions, which I regard as a switch-off rather than a switch-on. It reinforces people's worst prejudices about politics and politicians. It should be a serious exchange on a few themes with a view to eliciting some useful information.
Vernon Coaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that people do not mind the clash of view or opinion and ferocious debate when they think that it is real, but that they think that what they see in

329WH
Parliament is cosmetic and unnecessary confrontation? Does he agree that we need confrontation when ideas clash, rather than just as a stage performance?
Sir George Young: A lot of Prime Minister's Question Time is synthetic, and people would not normally behave like that; it is an act that they put on. It would be better if they did not do that, and asked questions in the usual way.
We all have our answers to the problem of voter apathy—I mentioned a few—and they are far more important than the mechanical ones, which I shall come to in a moment. We need to make people want to vote, and then we can ask how we could make it easier by changing how, when or where they vote. The basic question about Sunday voting is that if postal voting is freely available, do we need to change a well tried system to introduce weekend voting?
In the pilot schemes run by local authorities in 2000, which the Minister mentioned, postal voting was the only new electoral arrangement that had significant potential for increasing turnout at local elections. The Library analysed the results in a very good paper—02/33—and the Electoral Commission carried out its own analysis. It said:
"The technology-based voting pilots appeared to have no significant impact on turnout."
It found that postal voting had again proved a success in improving voter turnout, although not in all the pilots. In Trafford, the pilot scheme produced an election turnout of 50 per cent., which is a significant rise from the 15 per cent. in 1997.
On the specific proposition of weekend voting, will the Minister say whether she means the weekend after the Thursday when we would usually vote, or the weekend before? General election campaigns are already lengthy, and I was alarmed to discover that the Electoral Commission is consulting on making them even longer by harmonising them with other elections. I hope that that move towards bureaucratic tidiness will be resisted. There is genuine election fatigue towards the end of the campaign, which would be made worse if it were three days longer. In any event, we are in permanent campaigning mode these days, and the campaign is much less significant than it used to be.
In its study of the previous general election, the Independent Television Commission found that 70 per cent. had little or no interest in coverage, and 40 per cent. switched channels to avoid it. The consultation paper published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister referred to the experiment in Camden, in which voting was possible the weekend before the usual election day. Only 1.1. per cent. of the 28.4 per cent. who voted at all did so during the early voting period.
How good are the Government's arguments in the consultation paper for weekend voting? They argue that more leisure time at the weekend means more opportunity to vote. However, many of those who are disaffected have enough leisure time, and if time is an issue, as it is for some, they may vote by post. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) does not regard the Government's argument that an election should be held on the same day as elections in
330WH
the rest of Europe as a strong one. We have different systems and different cultures, and that argument is unlikely to find favour with the public.
What really alarmed me was the proposition that the general election would take place on two days. It would be seriously bad news for the polling stations to be open for two days. Given all the other means of voting, do we really have to have an election for two days? I suspect that the second day would be like the extra hour that we now have at the end of polling day for local elections, when very few people actually vote, and we irritate many more by asking them why they have not voted—adding under our breath how close the race is locally. The same would happen if the general election were held over two days. Very few people would vote on the second day, and there would be a disproportionate effort for very few extra voters. I accept that the schools would not have to close, but in my constituency many people vote in a village hall, not a school, and taking a village hall out of play for two days over a weekend is serious local politics.
There are other issues, including exit polls and what the press and other media would be allowed to say on the second day, when perhaps more than half the country has voted, but the other has not. The sheer fatigue of a second day of chasing up the non-voters who do not want to be chased up is a strong argument against two days of voting. I understand the religious sensitivities that would be offended if we plumped for either a Saturday or a Sunday, but surely those who have religious objections to one of those two days could vote earlier by post, or by proxy on the day. Two days of polling seems dotty. It is tinkering with the system, not addressing the underlying causes of voter apathy.
To conclude, I am not sure that I would look for alibis such as changing the day on which we vote. The answer lies far closer to home, and relates to how we conduct ourselves as politicians, how we motivate our electorate, and how relevant and effective they perceive us to be. If we get that right, they will vote on Thursdays, as they used to.
3.14 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I agree substantially with the remarks of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Tinkering with the system helps us to avoid examining the real problem.
When one reaches a certain age and moves into one's late 50s—although by Chinese standards, I suppose that I am no great age—one has seen quite a few years in politics. The first elections that I took part in were in the early 1960s. In the borough where I lived—Southend-on-Sea—40 per cent. was regarded as a very low turnout. My father stood in a number of elections in which the turnout was 60 per cent., and that was regarded as not uncommon.
As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire observed, in those days—although he may be speaking of a slightly later time—voters were at great pains not to make any admission that they would not vote. Officially, the only people who did not vote were Jehovah's Witnesses. Sometimes one was impolite enough to suggest to someone that they might be a Jehovah's Witness if they declined to vote, and they would then explain that there was some other reason. However, such admissions were rare.

331WH
Now, non-voting is worn like a T-shirt of honour—I think that would be the appropriate expression. People will say that they are not voting as though that were something to be rewarded. I suspect that, to some extent, the background to that is the media culture in which we now live. All of us in the House, and those on local councils, are regarded as scallywags or fools, or as people who are out of touch. The aim is to portray democracy in a way that cannot be attractive to the vast majority of voters. There is a dangerous tendency in the popular newspapers, television programmes and radio interviews to treat politicians—irrespective of party—as the accused. There is no understanding that people may go into political affairs out of a sense of high calling, or because they wish to make the world a better place. The assumption is that politics is about sleaze, self-advancement and pettifogging arguments about things that do not affect people. That is not true today, and it never was true.
In the period after the second world war, the newspapers were very partisan on both sides. It may now seem surprising, but in those days the Daily Mirror was a firmly Labour newspaper, and even the Liberal party had the News Chronicle. Those papers put forward their own political views strongly, but those views were argued on the basis of politics, not on the basis of the personality of the political opponents whom they faced.
It is therefore not surprising that after the second world war there was a generation of people, particularly people who had come back from the forces, who believed that politics was a channel through which the world could be improved. It is not surprising, either, that in the 1950 election the turnout reached the highest level that the UK has ever known. It was 84 per cent., and in some towns and divisions it was 90 per cent. That is all the more surprising when one considers that the election was not held on a bank holiday weekend, but in February. It was the middle of winter, and in some parts of the country there would have been snowfall, but people were so committed to taking part in the democratic process that nothing would induce them not to do so. They saw it as their duty and their privilege to take part in the elections.
We need to try to rekindle that view of politics, so that elections become a meaningful exercise for everyone in the country. That will not be a simple task, with the baying background cacophony of the popular media, pretending that we are all shams and frauds, and that nothing can be achieved.
We ourselves are not blameless. The pettifogging arguments that take place about nothing in particular are not very edifying for the general public. However, it is remarkable that people take delight in coming to see Prime Minister's Question Time, which is an elaborate stage show. Perhaps people separate that out in their minds and consider that it falls into the realm of entertainment. However, I suspect that—even if this debate is being broadcast now—the nation's televisions are not firmly tuned to that channel.
What can we do about all this? A number of things. First, we can try to conduct politics in a more adult and intelligent way. That applies to all parties, although not to all politicians, as many of them conduct themselves in that way already. However, we should put some constraints on the head offices of all the political parties,
332WH
because when an election approaches they enter into the most inane buffoonery, which has no beneficial effect whatever.
I represent one of the governing party's most marginal seats, and received great and bountiful benefits from head office during the last election. There were a series of huge, expensive posters on film themes, but one had to be very keen of sight to detect that they were urging the election of the Labour candidate. One might have thought that the picture was about to play at the multiplex cinema.
Nationally, such things may seem like clever ideas, and they may appear very smart to the advertising agencies, but they are completely meaningless to the average voter. For some strange reason, head office delivered to my constituency office footprints that were supposed to be laid out at the entrance to the Labour hall. At that point, my agent drew the line. He said that we were not going to make ourselves a complete laughing stock by putting footprints down on the way to the hall. Those are some examples from the Labour side of the political fence, and I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had similar experiences with their political organisations.
Another important reason for the decline in participation is the lack of contact between candidates and the voters. We think that we meet hundreds and thousands of people, but we do not; we have a lot of people to do that for us. When I first went into politics all those years ago, candidates canvassed people; you knocked on the doors of their houses one after the other, and asked them if they were going to vote for you. If people wanted to raise anything they did so there and then, on the doorstep, and they could judge what manner of person the candidate was and what sort of effort he or she was putting into the local community.
There was a lot of canvassing, although the number of people canvassed was always exaggerated. As hon. Members know, the 100 per cent. canvass is an impossibility. I have called at one house about 20 times in the last 20 years and never found anyone in, although I am sure that someone lives there. Members need to meet personally the people whose votes we are seeking. We need to get back to engaging them in conversation and giving them our time.
Our head offices tell us that telephone canvassing, or "voter ID", is the answer. I had a strange experience of telephone canvassing shortly before the last election. I went to see a lady of 90, and was sitting in her bungalow talking about not terribly political things when the telephone rang. The lady jumped and asked me if I would mind her answering the call, as it might be her son. The caller turned out to be a political canvasser; thank goodness it was a Conservative, rather than one of our own. She said to me, "That's very strange. It was someone wanting to know about the Conservative party. Why would they be asking me about that?" That lady is very intelligent, and well involved in political issues. In a way, that call was an affront.
We all say that we do not like being canvassed by double-glazing salesmen who telephone us out of the blue just when we are going out. The more humane of us try to be polite when we turn them down but others are as rude as possible. However, when it comes to politics, we are told that telephone canvassing is the only way, as

333WH
it is much more accurate. But we all know that it is not accurate at all. Most of the people who are telephoned have to be re-canvassed, because the responses are so negative that they do not provide an accurate picture. There is also no human contact in any real sense. I was quite pleased that my Conservative opponent used that method. I thought, "By golly, the poor chap must be so depressed each day when he gets up and asks his agent what the returns are."
We need to reinvolve ourselves in the community, which is not as easy as it was. In the past, political initiation took place through our parents, other family members, trade unions, Churches and fairly tight communities. However, much of that structure of society has weakened. Indeed, in some cases it no longer exists. It is much more difficult for people to become involved, because the mechanisms whereby they learn about these matters are a long way away. Things are beamed into their living rooms or delivered on to their doormats, so the bonding in society that is often a precondition of voting does not take place.
People can probably gather from what I have said that I am not a great enthusiast for weekend voting. It never does any harm to have been around a long time and to have read some history, because then one knows that this country has had weekend voting before. In many areas, the old rural district councils voted on Saturdays until 1974, so there is a precedent. In our county, we would help our friends across the border on the Saturday on the condition that they had helped us on the Thursday.
I do not have figures on whether the turnout for those elections on a Saturday was higher than the turnout for the other elections on a Thursday, because all turnouts were higher in those days. We could probably find the figures and discover whether weekend voting made a substantial difference, but it probably did not.
There is an argument for postal voting, provided that it does not lessen even further the amount of political activity that takes place. An agent who was not from my constituency once said, "Well, there's postal voting now, so when election day comes round, we don't have to do anything." That will reduce turnout yet again. As I have said, there may be a case for postal voting, but we should not be deluded into thinking that because the turnout for some of the local election postal votes is higher than the turnout with other forms of voting, there would be the same effect in a general election. Such votes are moving towards the maximum level of likely voters. Unfortunately, a large section of people in our society do not vote, cannot be persuaded to vote and have no interest in voting.
I am very hostile to some of the experiments on manysided ways of voting. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is no longer in his place, referred to that earlier. We do not want some groups in society to have an advantageous position in the electoral system. Many poorer and older people do not have all the electronic gadgets with which people can vote so easily. They will therefore be at a disadvantage, whereas those who have such gadgets and that type of lifestyle will be at an advantage. Elected politicians should be
334WH
mindful of the fact that if some people vote and some people do not, the result may well be different from what it would otherwise have been.
We should tackle the core of the problem, which is our own behaviour and the cynical society that has been created for many people. We should try to restore idealism and activity to politics, so that it becomes an integral part of people's lives and communities.
3.28 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: We have already had three substantial speeches in this debate, which once again shows the value of this Chamber for debating an issue of this type. Some of the themes to which I shall refer reflect what has been said.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said about the 1960s. I first stood for Parliament in 1966, having already been elected a county councillor. Obviously, there have been all sorts of changes since then, but I should like to draw attention to the contrast between the turnout when I was first elected to this place in February 1974 and the turnout when I was elected last time. In 1974 the wise electors of the then Bodmin constituency knew that the race would be close—indeed, in the end there was a majority of just nine—so they turned out in large numbers. We had an 83 per cent. turnout, in a scattered rural area with snow falling. In June 2001, in our customary balmy summer, my turnout in north Cornwall was 63 per cent.—a fall of 20 percentage points. The big difference was not in the natural climate but the political climate—the electorate took the wise decision that I had a relatively safe seat and was likely to be returned. The critical issue with turnout is whether your vote counts.
I want to focus on the mechanics first, before the motivation. The Minister was right to offer no panacea for improving the mechanisms, but in her peroration she made an important point about the legitimacy of Parliament. I wondered—I have not had the chance to check—whether she agrees with her boss, the Lord Chancellor, that the second House of Parliament can remain legitimate by being wholly unrelated to the electorate's wishes, with no democracy, no ballot box and no opportunity for the electorate to influence the composition of that House.
The mechanics are important, which is the reason for this afternoon's debate. Part of the equation—perhaps only a small part, but we should not ignore it—is trying to keep pace with the times and make the process of voting more accessible to the voter. To that extent, I congratulate the Government on introducing the pilot schemes. Even if we discover that they have little value, they will have fulfilled a significant function. My office has averaged the various experiments—with the result that all postal ballots come out at plus 14.93 per cent., which is significant.
What of electronic counting? One might think that it makes no difference whatever. It probably does not, but three of the elections—North Tyneside mayoralty and council and Chorley—were all-postal ballot votes as well. We can largely discount electronic counting; I cannot imagine why electors should turn out more enthusiastically because a computer will do the

335WH
counting. Extended voting hours produced a result of minus 7.15 per cent., electronic internet voting plus 6.32 per cent., and early voting 1.7 per cent.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I hate to be picky, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that aggregating the figures as he suggests is difficult unless one knows the relative weighting of the numbers voting in each election?
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman has much experience and a distinguished academic career in this subject area; I was about to make precisely the same point. Furthermore, the points of comparison are often difficult. I shall return to that in a few minutes in the context of my wider thesis that all these pilots of are dubious value in the longer term, precisely because of the difficulty of comparison.
I shall quote from the Electoral Commission report on the pilots of last August. Brief reference has already been made to one sentence, but I want to cite the whole paragraph:
"In a majority of pilot authorities, turnout was up by comparison both with recent local elections and with non-pilot area local elections in 2002. In some cases, turnout increased significantly—even matching the general election figures from 2001. But there were differences in performance between different pilot areas, and variations between wards even in areas that secured significant increases overall. The technology-based voting pilots appeared to have no significant impact on turnout."
That is the mixed bag to which the Minister referred, and it is important to return to the more deep-seated issues to which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and the hon. Member for Braintree have already referred.
Let me deal briefly with weekend voting. My colleagues and I support the idea of a pilot, because the case cannot be proved one way or another unless we have a go at it. I do not support the view expressed by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that we should just have one day—Saturday or Sunday. That is not just because of religious sensitivities. The Jewish community and other communities would not wish to vote on a Saturday, but we want them to take a full part in the process. Proxy voting is not an answer. Similarly, some Christian communities will find Sunday inconvenient, or perhaps even against their principles. Two-day voting is also a matter of convenience. Some people work all day on Saturday and do not work on Sunday, and vice versa. If we are to have weekend voting it should take place not on just one weekend day, but on both. Moreover, weekend voting should be combined with the European elections of 2004, because almost all our continental partners vote on a Sunday. There is some merit in the whole of that weekend being a Europe-wide electoral occasion, rather than its being confined to just one day, with us as the odd ones out.
The Local Government Association research report "Elections: the 21st century model", which was an evaluation of the May 2000 local electoral pilot, notes that one authority—Camden—conducted its local election in the weekend following the traditional Thursday polling day, and turnout declined there more than in any other authority in the country compared with 1999. The Electoral Commission also noted a fall in turnout in 2002 to 28.4 per cent. when there was a
336WH
repeat pilot of weekend voting. It is by no means certain that we will see a major increase in turnout as a result of this one little tweak.
Mr. Cash: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to go on to deal with this, but one of the things that has intrigued me about the Lib Dems is that of the 10 seats in England with the highest turnouts in the 2001 general election, five were won by Lib Dem candidates. I am quite surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned that. I think that there is something important there, not least that it demonstrates that where there is a fight going on, quite often in marginal seats—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. The debate is about turnouts.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), but obviously must not pursue him too far down that route, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He sounds as if he will support my view that turnout can be greatly enhanced if every vote has a reasonable opportunity of affecting the result. That is the critical issue.
Martin Linton: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of pilots, will he reconcile his first comment that there should be a pilot with his subsequent comment that the previous pilot could not be taken as evidence because the results were probably affected by completely different causes? I doubt that a pilot would work in this area, because we will not know whether it has succeeded or failed, as the fact that the election is at a weekend is only one of many different factors. Indeed, that is probably one of the weakest factors in influencing whether people vote. We need to go over to having a general election at a weekend if we are to have any idea of the real effect.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. My thesis is that comparability is extremely difficult in this area. That is why I will return to the careful analysis of the real life results of the 2001 election rather than going for averages. That will also be an answer to the hon. Member for Stone. We should not spend too much time tweaking here and tweaking there with these pilot schemes. We should go back to the motivation, and more radical reform.
I should like to quote back to the Minister the comments she made in this Chamber earlier this year. She said:
"Convenience is an issue, although it is not the only issue".—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 243.]
She has made similar comments again this afternoon. I hope that she and her Department have that over the door of their office. I believe that there are much stronger reasons for reviewing our electoral processes than she and her colleagues have previously given credence to.
Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with a number of the points the hon. Gentleman has made. It has been suggested that if people were allowed to abstain in an election by marking a box saying that they wished to abstain, it

337WH
would increase turnout. Does he think that that is the case? Would he welcome a box marked "None of the above" on the ballot paper?
Mr. Tyler: There is a genuine argument for that, but the aim would be achieved much more effectively if the choice were put the other way round. Rather than giving people the negative option, we should give people a preferential option to be positive. There are good examples of that. Currently we do not have compulsory voting in this country, so if people want to say "None of the above", they stay at home—as they clearly do. It is surely preferable to present them with a ballot paper enabling them to state their least bad option, which turns the negative into the positive.
As I said earlier, the biggest single factor is surely the perceived value of the impact of one's vote. I cited the case of the turnout figures in my constituency in Cornwall, but there are more recent examples. The average figures for the 2001 election are all from the same day—this is not making a comparison between different years, which is much less reliable than looking at figures from the same day—and if we look carefully underneath them we see that the foregone conclusion syndrome, which was to some extent a national one in June 2001, was even stronger in certain constituencies.
I have cited in this Chamber the turnout for Liverpool, Riverside of 34.1 per cent. I believe that the turnout there is always around that figure, because they weigh the Labour majority there, rather than constituents looking with interest to see who might win. Compare that with the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who in 1997 had a majority of just two. There, if anywhere, people knew their vote was likely to be of significance to the outcome, and he had a 72.3 per cent. turnout—more than twice that of Liverpool, Riverside—on the same day. That is a genuine comparison, rather than the pallid comparisons that we have been looking at.
A system of voting that allows a greater degree of proportionality will reflect the views of the majority of the voting public instead of a minority. We all know what proportion of the adult electorate actually voted for the present Government, despite their large majority. Such a system would also provide more diversity among the electoral representatives, which would do more than anything to engender a better connection between public and politicians, and more participation in elections. Surely we should be addressing that issue.
In that debate, the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) said:
"On average across the whole globe, turnout in first-past-the-post elections is 58 per cent., which is similar to the figure in this country, while turnout in proportional systems is 68 per cent."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 235WH.]
That is a real live difference, and it is extremely important that the Government address it.
The Scottish Executive have just published a draft Local Government Bill that proposes a proportional system for the purpose of returning local councillors. A lengthy and extensive consultation process was
338WH
undertaken before that stage was reached. Even in Wales the subject is now back on the agenda. There may be progress—depending, I suspect, on the result of the Assembly elections. Northern Ireland already benefits from single transferable votes and has a marked tendency towards improved turnout. The Library tells me that in Northern Ireland, where a system of single transferable votes is operated in all European elections, turnout has been significantly higher than in the rest of the UK.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman says that the single transferable vote has led to a higher turnout in Northern Ireland. Will he acknowledge that in the Northern Ireland elections to the United Kingdom Parliament, which are carried out on a first-past-the-post system, the turnout is also higher? The fact that it is higher for another system, too, does not lend his case much credence.
Mr. Tyler: I cannot confirm or deny that. I think that the discrepancy is much greater in the European elections than in general elections, but someone else can investigate that matter. An extremely valuable and well based independent review of electoral systems is currently being undertaken under the auspices of the Constitution Unit, under two distinguished chairs, David Butler and Peter Riddell, and I look forward to seeing what it produces. I hope that we shall have at least an interim report early in the summer. It will be interesting to see what comes forward from that.
The Government, including the Minister's Department, have already been tasked to undertake, lead or set up a more general review after the Scottish Parliament. Welsh Assembly and local elections have taken place in May. Perhaps the Minister will tell us a little more about that. I hope that she will be able to confirm, although she could not do so on a previous occasion, that she will pilot a single transferable vote system in the London borough elections of 2006. Lewisham has already offered to undertake such a pilot and others will, no doubt, follow if encouraged. That would be helpful.
As others have already said, the discussion of the various small-scale pilot options does not really provide a panacea; indeed, the Minister herself said that it did not. Weekend voting is probably worth looking at, but it is of marginal value compared with the radical change needed to reinvigorate the sense of purpose and commitment that we want the electorate to have in relation to the parliamentary system. To achieve that, we must have equal value voting systems. All the pilots will be dismissed simply as gimmicks if they are not accompanied by a more rigorous review of all the real options; they are like cutting our toenails when we need a hip replacement.
3.46 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: We are discussing a fundamental dichotomy: the wished-for health of the democratic system on one hand and the main purpose of the voting that takes place in that democratic system on the other, which is to decide which party has won and therefore gets power, either locally or nationally. To achieve that result, the parties will

339WH
undertake certain actions relating to those elections, which may or may not add to the first half of the dichotomy—the health of the democratic system.
I doubt whether this afternoon, between 2.30 and 5.30 in Westminster Hall, we shall between us come up with the panacea for the malaise that prevents people from voting. Inevitably, we will be talking to some extent at the margins. It is important to make points about the health of our democratic system and the extent to which we as politicians should behave better to encourage that and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, to connect better with our voters. However, the dichotomy that I set out to some extent emphasises that it is difficult to see how, unless one legislates fundamentally to change that dichotomy, the things that cause people to be turned off voting can be tackled.
For example, attack campaigning is clearly seen to work. A number of studies show that, so if one is a party manager, seeking to undertake the second half of the dichotomy—to get one's party to win an election—one might decide to undertake attack campaigning, even though that does not help the health of democracy. Although people say that they are very annoyed by telephone canvassing approaches, that method works by and large, so people are likely to use it to try to advance their political purposes. Part of the problem connected with the dichotomy is that the discussion on who is going to win the spoils of power in an election might relate, perfectly coherently, to what slice of a cake is cut for a winning side, whether or not that cake is getting smaller because fewer people are going out to vote. If we are not careful, we could end up with two parallel discussions about the academic health of democracy and about how to win elections. We must recognise that both are relevant to our electoral system.
I believe that a system of proportional representation is morally right for this country and may well increase turnout, but in countries that have had proportional representation for a long time voting figures are declining although they are higher than in countries with a first-past-the-post system. The trajectory of voting over a period should be examined to inform our discussions.
The idea that turnout is a sign of democratic health is fundamental. It is important that people exercise their right to vote and decide one way or another how their lives should be run through the political process. I cannot think of a better system—this spills over into elections for second chambers, nominations to quangos and so on—of organising people's right to take decisions on behalf of other people. Having a system whereby the legitimacy of that election is guaranteed because many people have taken part in it is important in the first part of the dichotomy. What can we do now to guarantee that?
This afternoon, we are debating not changing the voting system, but weekend voting and new systems of voting that may increase turnout. Setting those aside, what happens at the moment? As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we vote on Thursdays and there may be good historical reasons for that. I can think of another reason: that the candidates are usually so tired at the end of the election that being able to have Friday off, as well as the weekend, before they have to take decisions as a result of winning the spoils of election is no bad thing for
340WH
democracy. We ask people to vote on a Thursday in one place and if they do not turn up at that place they do not get a vote. We ask them to vote on a slip of paper that seems to have been printed by the last remaining letterpress printer in the country. We then ask them to fill in their preference on that letterpress-printed piece of paper using a carpenter's pencil attached to the wall by a piece of string. Finally, we ask them to do that in a horse box that has been set up in a school hall. That is probably one of the most bizarre activities that we ask people to do in their daily lives in expressing their opinions, preferences and thoughts. That might inform our thoughts on how to increase turnout and create the reinforcement to ensure that people are able to vote, although it may not necessarily be the answer to all our concerns about our democratic system.
It is true that some people may be disadvantaged by not having access to different forms of democratic participation that other people have. It is also true that the daily life expectations of society have changed radically. We do not all set off for work and return home at the same time. We do not all work in the same place, and we have different working practices. We used not to go to garden centres and the shops on a Sunday, but now we do. Several things have changed that relate to the assumptions that we make about our daily lives and what makes us vote. In the context of those changing ideas about our lives, it is important that we take that different way of doing things into account.
I was pleased to see the pilots that were originally set up by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and subsequently set up by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We must consider whether those pilots are worth pursuing as far as local elections are concerned. Pilots were introduced for the 2002 council elections, and we shall see a further 41 this year; those relate mainly to e-voting, but also to other forms of participation.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that it would be a good idea to agree with local authorities to have pilots on proportional representation voting systems, possibly under the public service agreement mechanism. For the Government to say to local authorities that high performing local authorities can have a great deal more freedoms but not the freedom to determine how to set up the voting system for their area may be viewed as a drawback to the otherwise admirable introduction of a system to enable local government to enjoy freedoms and flexibilities.
I shall spend a moment talking about the problems of pilots. As important as pilots are, there is a problem—this relates to my original point on how elections work—with the idea that we could select a better voting system, which overcomes faults and meets the needs of our lives, by examining the outcome of a pilot based on one local election in one area. Voting is by and large based on habit. Politicians know that, and apply that knowledge when deciding how their local electoral organisations will go about contacting voters. The political parties of all the people in the Chamber will have a note in their party office of who always votes, who votes in general elections but not in council elections, who votes in council elections but not always in general elections, who occasionally votes and who never votes. That information is in addition to information about whether people have always voted Labour, Liberal Democrat or

341WH
Conservative. An element of the parties' approach is to ensure that those people who sometimes vote in council elections are encouraged to come out and vote in an election. Those people who always vote are also canvassed to ensure that they vote. The people who rarely or never vote are often set aside, not part of the efforts of the party. Parties operate in that way because voting is habitual.
However, when parties consider their longitudinal records, they will observe not only that electoral turnout is declining but that those people who vote habitually tend to be members of the older generation. The very oldest voters will die off, or perhaps I should say die—please excuse my infelicity—and the next generation of voters do not have the same habits. Not only do young voters not have that habit of voting, but they have a contrary habit, which I personally find concerning for the health of democracy: they have the idea that it is cool not to vote. Many see it as a positive thing to say, "No, I'm not voting. You're all the same, and that's the end of the matter." The question is whether those cohorts will acquire voting habits as they grow older, or whether the non-voting habit will pass on through the generations. In future, people may have an endemic habit of not voting very often.
Mr. Cash: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten us as to why the turnout of young people has dropped to such an extent. What does he think would encourage them to vote?
Dr. Whitehead: There are a large number of reasons why young people do not vote. I am not sure that we have either time or the breadth of discussion this afternoon to go into those reasons in detail. There is clearly a combination of factors that I have already mentioned, such as the assumed lifestyle of young people, the dissociation from tribal loyalties in voting, the idea that politicians are divorced from the concerns of young people and a large number of other factors.
I was attempting to illustrate the danger for the democratic process if a cohort emerges that has a habit of not voting. That may pass on through the generations, and we shall end up with a population who do not vote. Voting may become a minority activity carried out by rather strange people who debate with one another. The net result could lead to very strange outcomes in which a very small number of voters in the grip of a particular enthusiasm gain representation despite the antipathy of the vast majority of the people who do not vote, or do not wish to. That was the precise outcome in some of the recent European election turnouts.
On the analysis of the pilots, I concluded that I was not sure that we could draw hard and fast conclusions from the offer of a particular voting method on one occasion, because voting is habitual. That phenomenon is not just something that occurs in elections. If someone sets up a park-and-ride scheme to get people out of cars and into buses, that scheme has to run for between 18 months and two years before anyone has the confidence to use it. That is usually about the time that the money for the pilot runs out and the local authority decides to discontinue the scheme, claiming that it has not been a success.
342WH
Some of the results of the 2002 pilots showed that there was no enormous change, even if we discount the fact that they might reflect the stopping of a decline. However, if we continued the process over a period, people might develop voting habits that were of far greater long-term benefit because they would be encouraged to vote in a way that was aligned with their lifestyle, rather than in the peculiar way in which they have to vote currently.
Martin Linton: Does my hon. Friend agree, in that case, that the Government sometimes suffer from what one might call pilotitis—a wish to have a pilot of every possible scheme, instead of having the courage of their convictions and making the reform?
Dr. Whitehead: I would not like the phrase pilotitis to be widely used. It does sound like something terrible that happens when people sit on radiators. My hon. Friend has a considerable point, which I was about to come to. The operation of pilots can tell us something, but not everything. Indeed, the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for North Cornwall raised that point earlier—albeit incorrectly, in the case of the particular significance of the Chorley election. The vast majority of authorities using electronic counting experienced an increased turnout, which is counter-intuitive inasmuch as the general voting public do not care how their votes are counted. One of the best increases in turnout, however, was based on that particular section of the electoral pilots.
Taking on board the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), my view is that pilots may be important, but if we base our entire future philosophy of elections on them, we may miss fundamental points about trends and habits. Frankly, the only way in which we can deal with that, short of having widespread placebo election experiments in which we run entire elections in parallel using different methods, is to bite the bullet and change things.
Mr. Tyler: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that he would agree that bringing together the local elections and the European elections in 2004 is valuable for reasons other than pilotry. I think that he would agree that voter fatigue is a problem, because having two elections within five weeks of each other may well be a disincentive to turning out.
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Looking at the turnout in general elections and council elections in recent years, in 1979 council elections and the general election were held on the same day—that is also true of the most recent general election—and there was a much higher turnout in the council elections, for obvious reasons. I am uncertain whether the turnout for European elections will drag down the turnout for local authority elections. However, I agree in principle that the idea is an interesting way in which to address voter fatigue.
In conclusion, if we agree that pilots have limited validity in deciding how to change electoral behaviour to make turnout increase, which would enhance the legitimacy of our election to our seats, the decision comes back to the House. To some extent, we have to

343WH
follow our noses. We should consider how the current voting system looks to those people who do not habitually engage in politics. In my canvassing for the previous election—this relates to why some young people do not vote—I found a number of people who simply did not know how to vote. Those people have not been to vote with their parents and find the process mysterious. They may well say that it is cool not to vote simply because they think that the process is more complicated than it actually is.
The Government should therefore press ahead with systems that bring our voting in line with how we live. We have to make a judgment because we do not have the empirical evidence to allow us to decide whether the leap will be beneficial. If we go down the weekend voting route and put together different methods of voting, it will make a difference. We will never know whether it made an empirical difference because we cannot judge the decision in the same way as a social science experiment. It is, however, our responsibility as politicians to make it happen.
4.8 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: It is a pleasure to follow the previous contributions to the debate. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) started the debate by dividing up the issue into motivation and practical factors. Voting is like planning a crime: one needs motive, means and opportunity, all of which have to come together for voting to occur.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) started talking about motivation, and he made some important points about the generational shift. I want to talk about that in the context of the way in which the concept of civic duty is changing. I shall start by talking about some of the opportunity questions, which relate to the opening hours and locations of polling stations, and the means questions, which are about novel forms of voting, such as postal votes, electronic votes and various other forms of remote voting.
Means and opportunity issues are important. The hon. Gentleman sensibly relayed the observation that going to vote is like going back 30 years for a lot of people. It is an odd experience. We are used to it because we live in the political world. However, he helpfully described the way in which the voting system appears to a lot of people outside political circles, who think of it as going back in time.
E-voting has rightly gained a lot of prominence and is seen as a way to bring voting into the 21st century. I am keen on e-issues, but even I am somewhat sceptical about the way in which e-voting is being heavily oversold as a turnout improver. E-voting certainly adds a layer of convenience, and I would never want to stand in the way of that. In such debates, there is sometimes a sense that voting should be made difficult and that barriers should be put in the way so that only people who are serious about voting get to do it. I count myself well out of that school. Voting should be made as easy as possible. There is no justification for trying to make things difficult and no advantage in doing so.
344WH
The potential for e-voting is sometimes oversold on the basis of being related to the number of internet users. About half the country has access to the internet. In particular, the younger age groups, which we want to target, have that access. I have started to consider the matter, in conjunction with people who work in the area of e-democracy, and I suggest that the realistic potential audience for e-voting is somewhere nearer 15 per cent. than 50 per cent. That proposition is based on the fact that the comparators for people who are likely to use e-voting are, much more accurately, people who are already using e-banking or e-government services, who are a very much smaller subset of the total number of people who have access to the internet. People who feel comfortable transacting online are not equivalent to people who are online in a more general sense. The experience of e-government bears that out. We get nothing like the usage figures that one might imagine from looking at the number of people who are online.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test also made an important point when he talked about the problem of continuous pilots or pilots that change from year to year and the fact that habit is an important element in getting people to vote. I had an e-voting pilot last year and I am going to get another, slightly different, one this year. Rather than seeing new people voting, I saw people who already voted shift from using the traditional paper method to the e-voting method.
The hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) picked up on the fact that the method of voting can influence who votes, and who votes can clearly influence the outcome. From a politician's point of view, e-voting is incredibly tedious because all that happens is that an electoral officer comes up and says, "You got this number and they got that number." That is it. There is no fun or excitement. Right at the beginning of the count, the officer comes out with a little scrap of paper and says, "There's your result, mate."
It was, however, exciting news when the results from the e-vote in one of the wards in my constituency that the Liberal Democrats normally win showed that we were three to one ahead, whereas our vote was down on the paper vote. The experience showed something that other studies bear out, which is that Liberal Democrat voters tend to use the internet proportionately more than voters for other parties do. Therefore we were three to one ahead, but we were three to two on the final count, which is exactly comparable to the result that we get every year.
Looking at the figures, it is fairly safe to say that we saw Liberal Democrat voters voting online, instead of going to the polling station. The Conservative voters who always went to the polling station kept going to the polling station. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, I may have a potential problem if the e-voting pilot is taken away, because my supporters, who have got used to voting online, may feel miffed and not turn out to vote at all if the service is suddenly withdrawn. There is still more work to be done in teasing out some of the issues, but I had not considered the fact that habit is so significant. That is something to take away from the debate.
A more significant aspect of the debate is the question of civic participation and the recognition that democracy is about far more than voting, which is only a

345WH
small part of it. If we become too obsessed about voting, voters may say, "You are interested in us only at election time." To me, the key to increasing turnout is what happens between elections, not what happens at election time. We should be focusing far more on the tie-up.
Again the electronic agenda is important. It is not the fact that someone makes a virtual cross in a box on a screen that is significant in increasing turnout, but the fact that someone who engages politically to vote on the internet will engage all the rest of the time. People may become involved in politics and political issues because they now have a set of tools that were not previously available. Such tools may fit more comfortably with their lifestyle and way of working, particularly if they are a younger voter. Therefore, the linkage is important. If e-voting has a value, it is as a link to e-participation.
The office of the e-envoy published a White Paper last year. I believe that it was published under the auspices of the Leader of the House. I know that the debate on it and many of the representations stressed the point that e-participation was important, rather than simply the voting, whereas the White Paper was more or less evenly split between the two. I believe that people want more work to be done on participation. I hope that the debate that is taking place in the context of the Lord Chancellor's Department's responsibility for elections is linked in a joined-up government fashion to other debates about the wider democracy agenda that are taking place in the office of the e-envoy and other forums.
Earlier, I expressed my concerns about the possibility of coercion and undue influence under all forms of remote voting. It applies to postal voting as well. I was interested in the Minister's response that she envisaged a multi-channel approach. That was helpful, but it means that I must counter the point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire about weekend voting perhaps not being necessary if there is a large amount of postal voting. At present, I am very keen to see a multi-channel approach develop whereby, even if postal voting is available, there are also supervised polling places.
The key distinction between a polling station and any form of remote voting is that a polling station is a safe environment in which an individual can vote without coercion and undue influence. Obviously, there are situations in which one would be concerned about that. I think particularly of a man in a household who controls access to voting by controlling the computer. He would be setting up the voting procedure. Particularly when it comes to a husband and wife—or man and woman—situation in a household, the possibility that the man will direct the voting is obviously much greater than if the man and woman go to a polling station together but split up and go into separate booths to vote.
Some of those issues lead me to suggest that polling places will continue to be important no matter how far we go with remote voting. In that respect, we have not sufficiently explored the advantages of supervised electronic voting as opposed to remote electronic voting. An advantage of electronic voting methods and machines is that they can be linked to a central network, so that people can vote at any polling station anywhere
346WH
in their district. They would not have to go to a particular polling station, which is an advantage in itself.
Such a system could allow us to provide more polling places as improvements in the technology reduce the costs. A polling place that is, essentially, a kiosk can operate with a lower staff ratio. A supervised electronic polling kiosk could be far more easily rolled out to multiple locations than the traditional paraphernalia of a paper-based polling station.
I stress that more polling places should be made available. Online banking is a good analogy for many things that are taking place in the online world. The banks have rapidly realised that online banking does not allow them to close all their branches. Many people want and value the branch network. In fact, banks are putting micro-branches in all sorts of places. Learning from that example could help us make polling accessible to people. Micro polling stations would be good for people. They would make it easier for them to vote but also give them certainty that they can vote free from coercion and undue influence.
I want also to cover the discussion about participation: whether people feel that they should participate and whether that leads them to vote. Important research is taking place at the moment, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, in the democracy and participation programme. It is led by Professor Paul Whiteley of the university of Essex and is starting to report now. Its findings will be illuminating to this debate. In particular, research carried out by Rachel Gibson, Wainer Lusoli and Stephen Ward of the university of Salford examined young citizens' political activity via the internet. Some of the research results are being released at www.ipop.org.uk.
The section of the population that the study considered is one that we could try to engage and persuade to vote via the internet. The results showed that while only 10 per cent. of those in the 15 to 24-year-old age bracket were currently engaged in real world politics, 30 per cent. had been active and carried out a political activity via the internet. The study also picked up on a small but notable group who engage in only virtual politics, eschewing entirely the traditional offline options. Rather than being a privileged elite, however, those people are more likely to be recent recruits to the internet and of a lower socio-economic status than those engaging in traditional politics. The study also found that a clear majority of those who used the internet to contact a political organisation—63 per cent.—claim that they would not have done so if they had had to rely on traditional means. That research programme is starting to pull out some interesting results about changes in behaviour, and I hope that we shall be able to feed some of them into the debate. The debates on civic participation and on voting should be seen as running together.
My next point relates to civic duty, which I mentioned earlier. It follows on from the comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test about the generational shift and relates to the British election survey 2001, titled "Britain (Not) At The Polls, 2001", which was conducted by Clarke, Sanders, Stewart and Whiteley and published in 2002. They examined several of the hypotheses that we have debated today about why

347WH
people did not vote, but the one that struck me related to what is often termed the end-of-deference debate. People nowadays do not feel that they have to vote, whereas before, they continued to vote out of a sense of duty and guilt.
That important theory has been alluded to already. The Minister spoke about it in the context of women voters, and we often pick up the idea from older voters that as people died for us to get the vote, we must use it. The study's authors picked up a potential shift in attitudes by asking people whether they thought that failing to vote was a serious neglect of their civic duty. That was upping the stakes, as they had previously asked whether not voting was a neglect of duty. In the 18 to 25-year-old age group, only 41 per cent. thought that it was a serious neglect of their civic duty; in other words, three out of five felt that it was not. In the 66-years-old and over age bracket, 86 per cent. felt that it was a serious neglect. The difference is stark, and it was much more marked in that question than in the general neglect question. Younger people felt that they should vote, but they did not feel that it was serious not to do it. That is an important distinction.
The authors suggested that those answers show the generational shift that has been described. We have spent many years pursuing freedom, and that has included the freedom to choose not to participate. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said, one factor may be that people say that they are choosing not to participate when they are scared to do so because they do not understand. I have experienced that. I have knocked on someone's door and said that I am the candidate for this constituency for this election, and I have had to start defining terms immediately, when asked what a candidate is and what the constituency is. The notion that everyone has an easy association between their Member and constituency is false. I have had to explain, "Sheffield has six constituencies. You've heard of David Blunkett. He's one MP, and I'm another." People often start at a low base, and in such cases people may be scared to look ignorant. That is prevalent, but the wider belief is that people no longer feel that they have to vote, and if they choose not to, we cannot make them. That attitude is significant.
The study examined that aspect of the dynamics of civic duty in its conclusions, which are worth quoting. It says:
"Although a comparison of 1997 and 2001 BES data does not suggest that the belief that voting is an obligation of British citizenship has diminished appreciably in recent years, already strong age-related differences are accentuated in response to a new civic duty question in the 2001 BES",
which is the one about serious failure if one has not voted. It continues:
"If these enhanced differences signify growing life-cycle or—more ominously—generational gaps in civic duty, the 2001 decrease in turnout may be a harbinger of a future where levels of electoral participation in Britain more closely resemble those in the United States."
In other words, dropping to 40 to 50 per cent. will be the norm.
There are questions about whether democracies are legitimate once participation has dropped to 40 to 50 per cent. The United States is clearly an established democracy that functions at that level, but there is no suggestion in the United Kingdom that any of us would
348WH
be comfortable with that. That generational shift may be the factor that finally tips us out of a comfortable situation in which participation has always been 70-odd per cent, although it occasionally slips down and picks up again, or slips down on elections that we all perceive to be relatively unimportant, such as the European ones. Interestingly, they were not seen as a crisis of democratic legitimacy, although the turnout was far lower than for the 2001 general election, which focused our minds because we all share a sense of the relative importance of general elections. The study highlighted the fact that dropping down to 40 to 50 per cent. at general elections is a real prospect as the generational shift takes place. We should all worry about it.
To conclude, I want the new methods to work, not fail. We should improve the opportunity to vote and the means of voting, but we always need to ensure that the integrity of the election is not compromised. I fear that it takes only one election result to be seriously challenged, or only one set of accusations about coercion or undue influence that cannot be properly resolved, for a whole new voting method to be written off in the minds of the public.
More important, we must improve the motivation of voters, especially by tackling civic duty head on. The democratic participation agenda research programmes will generate a lot of research and give us plenty of food for thought. We can make real progress if we get out of our cosy political environments and find out what is going on, and if we find imaginative new ways of conducting politics, rather than sticking a modern veneer on things and doing them in the way in which we have always done them.
4.27 pm
Vernon Coaker: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). I agreed especially with his concluding remarks, which built on the remarks made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Both made very good contributions to the debate.
I shall repeat many of the points that have already been made. However, I do so with some trepidation, as last summer—a few months ago now—I held a meeting for young people on voter apathy, but no one turned up. I therefore do not feel best placed to contribute to the debate, although the problem was more to do with timing and organisation than with the young people. I was the problem, which is one of the issues that we face.
The situation is serious. I take the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that competitive elections help, but participation in elections is declining, whichever way we look at it. The figures for 2001 reflect that trend. As we know, 59 per cent. of people voted, but the figure declined to 39 per cent. among young people, as hon. Members pointed out. Among under-35s. the figure was only 45 per cent. Those figures trouble us all, and say something about the health of our democracy. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, if we consider the differential turnouts and break the data down so that we can focus on the detail, we see that in some parts of the country, particularly some cities, a very small minority of people vote. If we break the data down by age, we see that a very small number of young people in those areas vote.

349WH
To understand what is going on, however, we must look beyond those figures and some of the measures that we are taking. There are problems with the formal political process. I make the obvious point that when we go to meetings or hear issues debated, there is no lack of interest in those issues or lack of desire to debate many of the great policies of the day. However, when it comes to making a statement about the formal political process through elections, people seem to see it as irrelevant. We must therefore find ways to make the formal political process much more relevant to people and to how they understand things are working. In other words, we have to increase the desire or propensity of people to vote.
The Minister and the rest of the Government are introducing various pilots, which I welcome. I have no problem with weekend voting. We could debate whether that should take place on a Sunday, a Saturday or both. I have no problem with e-voting, all-postal ballots or any of the other mechanisms that we could introduce for voting. We all agree that in encouraging people to vote, we need to make the act of voting as simple as we can. We need to make it easy, whether that involves the siting of polling booths, the electoral register or whatever. We need to help people.
However, these measures alone will not do the trick. If we think that by making voting easy we shall be doing anything other than tweaking the system, we are deluding ourselves and underestimating the scepticism, cynicism and mistrust that people have about the formal political process and, indeed, ourselves. That is reflected in election turnouts and the lack of desire to vote. That is the real challenge, which is why I particularly wanted to contribute to the debate. How do we as people's representatives in Parliament change, improve, reinvigorate, rejuvenate and enhance our democracy in such a way that people see voting for who should represent them in Parliament as worth while? Whether voting takes place on a Thursday, Sunday, Monday or Tuesday is irrelevant to the answer to that question.
A number of hon. Members have made that serious point. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, a massive majority of people in the younger generation feel disillusioned and frustrated. Only in the older population is there a sense of civic duty and connection.
I very much agreed with the remarks that I think were made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. I hope that I do not misquote him. We must consider what we do in this place and how we are perceived if we want people to vote and election turnouts to improve. We all say in elections, "Vote for me. I am not just here for you at election time; I am here all the time." However, one of the biggest criticisms that people can make is that politicians turn up only at election time. They say, "Because you turn up only at election times, we're not going to vote. If you're not interested in us between elections, we're not going to vote. If you knock on our door only when you want something from us, don't bother. We're not going to vote."
350WH
What happens between elections is important in people's decision whether to turn out and vote at the next election. If, having elected us as their representatives in 2001, the next time that people feel any sense of involvement with their MP or Parliament is in 2005 or 2006, no change to the mechanics of voting will do anything to increase voter turnout in the election. That is because people's cynicism, disillusion and despair will have grown during that time. It will be a real challenge for us to change that, but we must try to find ways to do so.
Members of Parliament are not delegates, and it would be a sad day if we ever became just representatives who are only ever accountable at an election. It would be increasingly difficult to sustain that position because people want a greater sense of involvement and to participate in democracy all the time, not just at elections. It is a real challenge to find ways of involving them.
I want to make some suggestions that could help us to reconnect with the public and overcome that cynicism and sense of disillusion, which would help to increase the turnout at elections.
First, we should consider how we conduct our debates in this place. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire made a good point about unnecessary confrontation in the Chamber, which people do not like. They do not mind clashes of views and opinions when they are genuinely held and passionately felt, as shown in the debate on Iraq last week. I did not participate in that debate but I spent many hours listening to it in the Chamber. It was a great debate; there were huge clashes of opinion and Members expressed strongly held views. They vehemently criticised each other's points of view, but they respected them. People outside this place did not mind that; they did not see it as unnecessary, so it did not breed that sense of disillusionment that leads to their feeling disconnected from Parliament, which in turn leads to their asking why they should bother to vote.
We need to look at how we conduct our debates, how we address each other and some of the language that we use. We must consider how to involve people in the decisions that we take in this place and how we can more effectively take account of people's points of view.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. Does he agree with me about modification of the Whip system, a matter that I have raised many times? Many people are simply not interested in seeing Members being driven like sheep through the Lobby.
Vernon Coaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and so do many other people; that is why Westminster Hall is such an interesting innovation. Many people, if asked, would probably say that there is some unnecessary whipping in Parliament. Certainly, that is what a lot of people say to me. Either we tell those people that they have got it wrong about their democracy, and that the whipping system works very well, or we listen to what people have to say.
People are becoming more frustrated by Members voting rigidly along party lines. They want more genuine debates on the issues of the day, in which Members allow their conscience to dictate how they

351WH
vote, although we must remember that we have a party system of government. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that we must have a whipping system but that it is probably too rigid. We should consider ways of allowing more free votes and debates on issues in which Members genuinely have a free vote. That would be helpful, and I think that people in the country would appreciate it.
Reforming the way that we do our business in Parliament would allow people to feel more connected to the formal political process and should, in the end, improve electoral turnout. Greater involvement in decision making and changes to our practices here should help.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) suggested, the media have a role to play in improving electoral turnout. I am not one of those people who view the media as the enemy, always getting things wrong. The media have a responsibility to report misdeeds and wrongs, but also to recognise and report people's genuine attempts to produce solutions to political problems of the day.
I have outlined a couple of ways of reforming the way that we do our business in this House. It is crucial to reflect on how we, as MPs, connect with our constituencies' and to gain an understanding of how we can give people a greater sense of involvement in the decision-making process. People in the 21st century do not accept that they voted for me, that I come to Parliament and that they have to wait another four years before passing judgment on how I have done. That factor has to be balanced against the dangers of a pure delegate system. To improve electoral turnout, we must start to deal with those issues as well as the mechanics of voting.
Let us be imaginative, radical and determined to change the factors that lead to disillusionment and despair, which often result in the declining participation of people, particularly younger people, in voting. We need to find ways of reforming ourselves, so that people see voting as part of the democratic process.
4.41 pm
Mr. William Cash: As in the previous debate of 22 January and despite my remarks at the outset that we would repeat what we had debated before, I have come away from this debate with a sense of considerable enthusiasm for the subject. All the speeches have been thoughtful and excellent. As other hon. Members have said, what a pity it is that so few people are participating in this debate. Frankly, the massive decline in voter turnout—down to 59.4 per cent.—that occurred during the last general election is a serious sign for all political parties. It is effectively a demonstration of despair in the system.
I am not criticising the Government, but I doubt whether the key issue is about systems and techniques. They could change things at the margin, but for practical purposes, with the possible exception of postal ballots, no more than that. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will forgive me for saying that the solution does not lie in proportional representation. The problem is much more fundamental. The previous worst figure in general election turnout was in 1918. By nature and inclination an issues man, I am more concerned
352WH
about the relationship between the events of a period and the consequences for general elections than about the technical aspects of voting systems.
If people are seriously worried about a problem, they will turn out to vote. In an agreeable exchange with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) we found that five of the 10 highest turnouts were reflected by Liberal victories, which tells us a great deal about the degree of interest generated in those constituencies. Perhaps there is some connection, although I cannot think of it immediately, between what was going on in constituencies such as Liverpool, Riverside which have demonstrably low turnouts. Perhaps it was just the sense that there was nothing to vote about because it was a foregone conclusion, or it might have been because not enough political energy was being shown by the people who were their representatives. In other words,
"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
That takes me back to the point that I have made about the Whip system. We will inevitably have a whipping system in a party system. The parties, after all, represent the translation of opinions into policies and law. Those opinions are reflected by the body of people who gather together, as Burke would put it, on a common principle in the national interest as they see it. People in the 18th century understood these things. I should like to mention a matter of anecdotal historical interest. I say this with great respect to the Lib Dems, particularly the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) who represents Ranmoor where I was brought up. My parents still live there and are his constituents.
The most illustrious member of my family was John Bright, who was effectively responsible for the 1867 Reform Act, passed by Disraeli. No one can doubt the degree of energy that he and others applied when they decided after the corn laws that they wanted to address the need for people to be given the right to vote, which was the point that the Minister made at the beginning. I entirely endorse that. I greatly admire the suffragettes for what they did. But this was not a feminist movement as such; it was a matter of the right to vote. The turnout was essential to those questions.
The Hyde park riots that preceded the 1867 Reform Act were a demonstration by people who were frustrated that, on the great issues of the day, what they said or thought was completely irrelevant. Although I am in favour of dealing with Saddam Hussein in an effective manner and although I am prepared to concede that it is not inevitable at the moment, I still think that the protest marches and other demonstrations are another form of turnout that is also extremely important not only in modern politics but in politics down the ages.
This is a terribly important debate. I suppose that I should not be surprised that there are not more hon. Members present, but I am disappointed that this is the second time that we have been around the circuit and there has not yet been a sufficient appreciation of the significance of the matter. I wish that we could have more debates like this and perhaps fewer of the other kind that often give rise to a comment that I frequently make at meetings—the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons.

353WH
I, too, am extremely alarmed by the lack of interest shown by young people. I am not entirely convinced that we have got anywhere near trying to appreciate it. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) made important points about that. If I may again quote Disraeli,
"The Youth of a Nation are the trustees of Posterity".
It would be an appalling state of affairs if the drop in interest among young people continued. If that trend were extrapolated into the next general election and the one after that, our democracy, which is already at risk for several reasons, would be severely tested.
I endorse and have always been enthusiastic about the idea of civic education. Some people would say that I am a traditional Tory, but they do not understand where I am coming from. Some of my more traditional colleagues are extremely suspicious of ideas of civic duty and teaching pupils in schools about the system of government, but I am all for it. It is terribly important. I wish that I had been better taught at that time. I was well taught in history, Latin and other such subjects, which have been useful in their time. But there is an important role for giving young people a clear understanding in this complicated, topsy-turvy world of why they should go out and vote.
Voting is the most important thing that a person does, when we think about it. Imagine if nobody voted, to put it in the most absurd context. The participation of a person in exercising his freedom of choice by turning out in an election and putting a cross against the name of the person who represents, in broad terms, the kind of society that he wants to live in is one of the most important things that a person can do. It is like eating, drinking and sleeping, but it happens only once in a blue moon. The fact that a vast number of people decide not to vote, for whatever reason, or think that politics is boring, uninteresting and irrelevant, or fail to understand the significance of what is going on is a dangerous sign of the times that we live in.
I was interested to hear on the radio this morning that George Orwell's "1984" has been rated the most important book in a poll of those who read books these days. Perhaps there is some significance in that. I am therefore extremely glad to know that the Electoral Commission is to take on this important role, but I issue a serious caveat, as I have done repeatedly in this House with respect to the BBC and the broadcasting authorities, about the manner in which it addresses these fundamental questions over which it has so much influence.
I suspect that unless we are determined in all parts of the House to ensure complete impartiality in these crucial arenas in the formulation of the culture of politics and democracy, we shall get into deep trouble. People will react against politics if there is not the necessary degree of impartiality. I also believe that we must give serious consideration to the manner in which we behave in Parliament. I do not just mean matters such as privacy that hit the headlines, but also the way in which we reform the House.
Two or three of our most interesting recent debates were on House of Lords reform, which produced an extraordinary result. It was a lesson in itself about the
354WH
lack of navigation that we were able to bring to bear on that subject, for heaven's sake. I should have thought that it was an obvious matter, in concert with the views of the hon. Member for North Cornwall. The idea that we cannot have a second Chamber that is at least 80 per cent. elected is astonishing.
There is also the relative irrelevance of much of our Committee proceedings, where hon. Members are just babbling on, no one has the foggiest idea what about, and no one will ever look at the official record. It is a sort of game of chess that is being played between the civil servants and the party positions. Now is not the time to go into all that, but it is a problem.
I would also say, with respect to young people, that there is also the matter of the "celeb culture" and all that goes with it: the role models, what is considered to be important, the lack of discrimination, and the fact that young people are asked to form comparisons between politicians and celebrities. Celebrities may, of course, be very nice people. I often find that some of the people who have legendary mythologies built up around them are decent people when you get to know them, and some, such as Bob Geldof, whom I happen to know well, do an enormous amount of good.
However, young people will gain respect for politics and politicians only if they are given an understanding of their relevance to their lives. We are here to serve them, and I hope that we do the best that we can, but the turnout of young people will be reflected in the extent to which they have a respect for the institutions. That, perhaps, is why I am a Conservative, because I believe strongly in those things. I am not saying that other parties do not, but the Conservatives have, historically, put emphasis on that.
I believe that the problem is much more than a matter of systems. However, I must draw attention to the very mixed results that emerged from the pilot schemes. I assume that most people in this country are of more or less the same kind, whichever part of the country they come from, and that there is no obvious discrimination to be made between one constituency and another. I was therefore intrigued that the results for postal balloting were so mixed. Postal balloting is a simple thing—one either votes with a postal ballot or one does not. It is not dependent on whether people have new technology available to them—a point that the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) was right to raise.
A House of Commons research paper shows that turnout in South Tyneside almost doubled, from 24.2 per cent. in 1998 to 55.3 per cent. in 2002. Why should the people of South Tyneside double their response when they have a postal vote available to them? There were similar increases in Stevenage, from 25.5 to 52.9 per cent., and in Chorley, from 31.3 to 61.5 per cent. In Greenwich, however, it decreased from 32.5 to 31.9 per cent. That may not be a large decrease, but it is an interesting comparison with the others. There was also a decrease in Hackney.
I am loth to make any assumptions about those mixed results, or about other areas such as electronic/internet voting. In Crewe and Nantwich, where the website system was used, the turnout increased from 18 per cent. in 1998 to 31.4 per cent. in 2002. Perhaps more people are using websites in that area, but that trend may not be reflected in other parts of the country.

355WH
There is a mixed pattern resulting from the pilot schemes, so I am not convinced that, with the current low turnouts, we should be paying an undue amount of attention to the systems. I am convinced that the real problem is to do with the failure of democracy, or the increasing tendency for people to become disillusioned with what we are doing, which, after all, should not be seen as a separate function. It is part and parcel of their lives and affects them. The democratic deficit reflected in the low turnout in European elections—I shall mention Europe once, then not again—is another feature of centralisation.
The same problem increasingly applies to domestic politics, as more and more legislation is sucked and absorbed into a remote system that is so complicated in its institutional arrangements, which I deplore, that it is impossible even for Members of Parliament to understand the interaction between European and domestic legislation. I personally believe that that contributes to low turnout. People simply do not know who is taking decisions and how they are arrived at. The democratic deficit, with the European constitution, will cause an absolute nightmare and be a great danger in the future. The contrast between the attitude of France and Germany to the monumental problem with the Iraq war on one hand and the Prime Minister's advocacy of a common foreign and security policy on the other is enough to make anyone wonder whether they should turn out to vote. That is part of a much deeper problem.
The media, and interviewers, as I said in the previous debate, have a huge responsibility. I am not sure whether I want to use the word "blame", but it is sometimes necessary. We are now getting to a position in which, as the hon. Member for Gedling said, the media are not necessarily seen as the enemy. Sometimes, however, they are. I can be quite blunt about that. I have been on the receiving end of the media myself. Sometimes I do not mind if they want to do this, that or the other. I have had some extremely satisfactory and helpful debates, discussions and interviews with some important interviewers during the past 20 years. That has been pretty tough stuff, but I do not mind that. However, I am concerned by something that, I think, impacts on interest in the political system. People hear great interviews and real debates on such programmes as "Today" and "Question Time", and perhaps forget that the people involved, however good, important and skilled, are not elected. They are not people's representatives.
A distortion is taking place in the public mind, perhaps especially among young people—a failure to discriminate between what is really important to the law-making and policy-making processes in the national forum of Parliament and debate that takes place between unelected people. That is not a game; it is serious and influential debate, but the people involved do not have to take the same responsibility. John Humphrys wrote a piece in The Sunday Times recently in which he said that he can fill a village hall, whereas Members of Parliament holding public meetings get no response at all. I wrote a letter to The Sunday Times and ticked him off, saying, "Just get this right, John Humphrys. You are not an elected politician—just try to keep a sense of responsibility about this". I think that he is an extremely good interviewer and I have no doubt that he works very hard, but the problem is serious.
356WH
Now, politics is being taken on to radio, such as Radio One. Many, although by no means all, radio programmes on it are pure rubbish. There is no informed opinion there, just babble. The people who listen to that could be strongly influenced, especially young people who listen to pop programmes and come away believing that the people on those are important and so, perhaps by definition, politicians are not. I feel that we have a huge social and political problem here, and I am deeply worried by the way in which the disconnection from young people is escalating.
I also refer to the difficulties that arise from the growth of the far right; there is no far left these days. That growth comes from the centre right's lack of engagement in some of the serious problems of our time. The disillusionment and cynicism about asylum and immigration has been exacerbated by some Government policies, and that will be an increasing problem. In Stoke-on-Trent, which is near my constituency, there is a serious British National party problem. The Labour Members who represent constituencies there are aware of it. That problem exists not just in that area but elsewhere, and has a bearing on turnout. I shall not give the figures for Stoke-on-Trent, but turnout levels are a contributory factor to the increase in votes for the far right. It is far right parties that are often thought to have the passion and conviction; it is they who get out there and dish it out to the people. They play on people's apprehensions and concerns.
In some constituencies, Members of Parliament—I do not criticise those concerned—do not give the impression that they are that activated or bothered by the issues; they seem to be going through the motions. I feel passionately about politics, whether the issue is third-world debt, Europe or constitutional matters. The apathy among voters is a reflection of the lack of interest in the great issues that is shown by their representatives, who are over-controlled by the Whip system. That diminishes their confidence and determination to get up and speak for their constituents.
In my constituency in the previous election, my majority nearly doubled if for no other reason than because my constituents had a pretty clear idea about where I stood. Anyone who read my election address would know that there was no doubt about it. We need more direct discussion in Parliament, and far less finessing. There does not have to be sheer confrontation, but there has to be direct discussion. Then people will see the relevance to their lives of what we are doing. In my opinion, that is what this is all about.
I have found this debate fascinating, and I would like to say how much I have enjoyed listening to all hon. Members' speeches. I hope that we have all learned something from it; I have.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be helpful if I point out that if the Minister is to have an adequate opportunity to respond, she should be called no later than 5.15 pm.
5.8 pm
Martin Linton: I value this opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. I first became interested in the matter when I was a member of the

357WH
Select Committee on Home Affairs in the previous Parliament, and we wrote a report on electoral law and administration. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) may have been on the Committee; I do not remember. We suggested many changes, including the rolling register and postal voting on demand, which were later taken up and are now in force, but we had no illusion that they would make a huge difference. We were advised that any changes like that would make, at most, a 5 per cent. difference in turnout, and I thought that even that was an exaggeration. Indeed, since the report came out and those changes were incorporated into the Representation of the People Act 2000, turnout in parliamentary, European and local elections has fallen, so clearly there cannot have been any dramatic effect.
The fact that turnout went down after the changes came in does not prove a case of cause and effect; indeed, it may be possible that the changes have helped to increase the turnout, but that other factors have had a greater effect in reducing it. That is probably what has happened. We made the changes not because of the effect they would have on turnout, but because they were worth making in themselves.
I am sorry that some of the other changes that we proposed were not made at the same time—weekend voting is one of them. I think weekend voting is well worth pursuing. I got a slight hint from Opposition Members that they may he worried that, because so many of their voters have second homes that they go to at weekends, this might have a disproportionate partisan effect on their vote. They need not worry about this. In the previous debate, I quoted figures from Sweden where 40 per cent of the population have second homes. The country is made of islands and lakes, and many people have little cottages that they go to at the weekend. They have always had Sunday elections, and nobody has ever suggested that they have a disproportionate effect on one party or another.
Weekend voting has to be accompanied by sensible measures for early voting and postal voting. We now have postal voting on demand, but that involves applying at least a week in advance; there could be a far easier system than that. In Sweden, people can vote at any post office in any town in the country, up to and including polling day itself. There are main post offices in all major cities that take votes up until about 2 pm in most cities—up until 5 pm in Stockholm—and then convey them to the relevant local polling station. It is just as if people voted at their local polling station. As long as there are sensible provisions, people who are called away on business, or who decide to go away for the weekend, will still able to vote.
There are many more things that could be done—for example computer-linked registers. One of the main problems is that people have to vote in their own polling station and that is often inconvenient. In this day and age, when all electoral registers can be linked to a central register, there is no reason why people could not be allowed to vote anywhere, even within their own constituency. Many people go to different polling stations, only to be told that they cannot vote there. It is a simple process to allow them to vote at a different polling station.
358WH
Overnight re-registration is another matter. We are now able to re-register in a maximum of six weeks, but there is no reason why it should take anything like as long as that. In some countries people can go to their local tax office, sit down in front of a computer and type in their new address. The following morning not only their voter registration but their tax address and address for all public purposes will be changed on the computer system, and they need do no more. We should compare that with the difficulty of registering a change of address in this country.
Postal ballots could be sent to every elector. The one change in the Representation of the People Acts that made a substantial difference was all-postal ballots. That resulted in an increase of 30 to 60 per cent. in the turnout at Chorley and Gateshead. That was not consistent everywhere, but it was clearly a substantial increase, and how much better it would be if we could send out as a matter of course a ballot paper to every voter, which they could take either to their local polling station or to another polling station, or send in if they so decided. We would thus have those dramatic benefits from all-postal ballots reproduced countrywide.
We must not start a pilot project on everything—if something is worth doing in one area, it is worth doing everywhere. It is worth having a pilot only when there are alternatives available. Most pilots do not give the answer to the question that was asked, because that is one of many factors that the pilot is never going to identify unless it is done on a massive scale, and if one is going to do that, one might as well do it countrywide anyway.
The Minister talked about the practical difficulties of having Sunday as the start of weekend voting in the European elections in 2004. This is an ideal opportunity because legislation already allows every European country to choose any day from the Thursday to the Sunday on which to hold its European election. It is a good idea to hold several elections on the same day; many countries do so as a matter of course. Some have general, regional, local and even Church elections on the same day and that leads to a much higher turnout.
Why not use the latitude that we shall have in 2004 to introduce the first serious weekend voting experiment for a long time? Holding elections on a Sunday will allow many more people to vote. I know that that will create difficulties in the Western Isles and elsewhere, but our idea that we should hold all our elections on a busy working day is crazy. There is no doubt that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people who could not otherwise vote will be able to do so at the weekend. The test as to whether it is worth doing is not whether it will increase turnout but whether it will help people who cannot vote to do so. We do not need to put all the reforms to some sort of utilitarian test because, however many pilots we run, we shall never be able to prove what the effect is on turnout. We must follow our instincts, and if we think that the reforms are worth making we must introduce them.
5.16 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): We have had an excellent debate, encompassing some interesting and thoughtful contributions.

359WH
Many hon. Members made the point that addressing the mechanical, practical issues that are involved in changing the way we vote does not address the underlying problem of whether people want to vote or the fact that increasing numbers of people do not vote. They are right: we should not use changing the practicalities as an excuse not to address the fundamental problem for which we must take responsibility as politicians and as political parties—the growing number of people who are disaffected, who actively choose not to vote, or who do not see enough purpose in voting. Equally, the reverse is true. The fact that there are deeper issues involved should not be used to justify ignoring practical changes that might make life easier or that might increase the number of people who find it more convenient to vote and therefore do so.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made some important points about disenchantment. He described the attitudes of people who vote for "Big Brother". It is easy to do that—it involves sitting on a sofa and pressing the red button on the Sky remote control. To vote for "Fame Academy", one has only to pick up the phone—until the last minute, when one cannot get through at all. In some cases, one can vote early and often. There are all sorts of lessons there, I fear, about the ways in which people vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) raised some important points about people's attitudes towards community and civic duty. They are complex issues and we should recognise the changes that there have been in society. We must also ensure that that does not become an excuse not to address practical changes that can be made in the short term.
Let us consider the pilots that many hon. Members have quoted. In Preston, 16 per cent. more of the electorate voted in the all-postal ballot than did under the traditional system, according to the Electoral Commission review. In Trafford, 20 per cent. more of the electorate voted in the postal vote than in the vote using the traditional system. It is still the case, however, that in the ballot in Preston, 60 per cent. of the electorate did not vote in the local elections, and in Trafford 47 per cent. of the electorate did not vote, so there are clearly a huge number of wider issues. Those margins of about 16 and 20 per cent. are sufficiently large for us to take them seriously and to respond to the pilots. The worst possible defence of the status quo is to say that, because there are bigger issues, we cannot address some of the narrower questions to which solutions might be found. Just as I would never support using the voting system as an excuse for not addressing the wider issues, I would never say that, because of the wider issues, we should not make some practical changes to the system.
There are two important reasons for making changes. First, some of the evidence from the postal vote ballots suggests that making voting more convenient for some groups of voters makes a difference to whether their voices are heard and registered in our democracy. Secondly, as my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Martin Linton) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made clear, if we can make it easier for people to vote, we should. All other things being equal, it is better if voting is more convenient. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test gave an amusing account of the way in which we vote and said how
360WH
different certain aspects of voting are from ordinary life—for example, the horse boxes and little stubby pencils, although one can buy the little stubby pencils in IKEA, so perhaps they would catch on as part of a more modern system.
Hon. Members have referred to many issues in connection with the pilots and the evidence that they provide. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea that one cannot wait for pilots to show everything—pilotitis, as he described it—but we need pilots in such areas because no one should tamper lightly with the mechanisms of democracy. It would be a disaster to change the way in which we vote, if it turned out, for example, that the whole system fell apart or the method of counting the votes did not work. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) was right to say that a mistake in implementing a pilot or a problem with a new voting mechanism could undermine it for the long term. Those practical issues matter. The purpose of the pilot programmes is to establish credibility and legitimacy, to test practical issues and to ensure that we do not introduce problems of fraud.
There is no evidence to support weekend voting. I agree that there is a case for following our noses and trying things out on a larger scale, but the e-voting pilots did not show any substantial impact on turnout. My suspicion is that the e-voting and text-voting pilots will make an impact not in the next election but 10 years down the line. If we do not explore different methods of voting, including electronic voting, now,—especially as there are so many complex issues relating to the technology and security of such systems—we shall find ourselves looking a little bit ridiculous in 10 years' time, because increasingly so much of our lives takes place through electronic means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree made powerful points about inequality and who votes. That must be uppermost in our minds when we consider any changes to voting mechanisms. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test made some important points about voting habits. The Electoral Commission did some research after the 2001 election into why people did not vote. That involved discussions with focus groups of people who had not voted. They were asked why they had not voted: some said that they did not know enough about it, that they did not feel confident enough to vote, or that they did not know enough about what they were voting for. I doubt whether those young people knew less than young people 30 years ago. However, there may have been a change in people's expectations of what they should know—and what they want to know—before they feel confident about making their choices, in the same way that, as consumers, they can decide what kind of car they want to buy.
I would not underestimate the long-term effect of issues relating to citizenship and education in schools, to which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred. He is right to say that the credibility of such things depends on their being non-partisan. People should be given information about our political institutions, where they are, how one has a say in them, and the role of the people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was also right: this is not simply about voting, but about participation in a wider sense. People no

361WH
longer think it is enough to have one encounter with the politician—one vote—every few years. We should be considering other, broader, ways to empower people.
There are broader issues relating to people's engagement with their communities and local institutions. The issue is not simply one of engaging with Parliament; it is about engaging with other community institutions and civic participation. Those who participate in other institutions are more likely to vote. A lot of work has been done on how to reinvest and re-establish communities and how to give people greater involvement and participation in them.
Many initiatives have not been effective, but the sure start programme is. It focuses on the point in people's lives—when they have small children—at which they are suddenly faced with a big change and want to know who else is in their community. They want to be a part of the community, they want to engage with it and they are suddenly very keen to become involved in local organisations and institutions. That may be a counter-argument to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. He said that such habits start early in life and are never kicked—people either start voting or they do not. However, people can change at different points in their life cycle. Fundamental life changes can have a huge impact on people's participation in things, which can also be a way of engaging people with voting.
362WH
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned the decline in deference and the sense of duty. He is right. We should not romanticise traditional communities. In many ways, it is a good thing that there has been a decline in deference. It is also true that people will no longer vote out of a sense of duty or deference. We must give them something else to vote for—other reasons to vote. That reflects many of the points made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. He spoke about the importance of the roles played by politicians and political parties. So much of the process of allowing people to engage more effectively with our democracy comes down to politicians and political parties becoming the vehicles of democracy. We cannot ignore or walk away from that fact. It is right that we should recognise that we are responsible for doing that. That does not mean that hon. Members have easy answers about how to do that. We will conduct much of the debate about that within our political parties, rather than in forums such as this. There are many changes that we could make in Parliament by considering other voting systems.
There is much work still to do. Decisions on many of the issues surrounding the 2004 elections and weekend voting have not taken place within Government. The debate has been helpful in contributing to those decisions, and I welcome the contributions of hon. Members this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Combined Heat and Power
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she proposes to take to encourage(a) operation and (b) development of combined heat and power plants. [101122]

  Mr. Meacher
  A number of new support measures for CHP were announced in the Energy White Paper, recognising the important role that CHP has to play in helping the UK tackle climate change and the difficult market conditions the industry faces. Together with the measures set out in the draft "Government's Strategy for CHP to 2010", I believe that these will set the sector on course to achieve our target of 10GWe in 2010.

  Inland Flood Defence
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on recent progress made by(a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency in implementing the recommendations made by the Committee of Public Accounts in its report on inland flood defence. [101123]

  Mr. Morley
  In their report, the Committee recognised that improvements had been made but rightly focused on areas where, in their opinion, we could do more. Many of their recommendations fall directly to the Environment Agency as the country's main provider of flood defences and because of its supervisory and flood warning responsibilities. We continue to work with them to address the Committee's recommendations.

  Animal Disease
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on claiming money from the European Commission to tackle animal disease. [101124]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's policy is to make an application on a UK basis in support of selected programmes for each year. The Commission Deadline for the submission of claims is 1 June, both for the submission of programmes for the following calendar year and for detailed claims for the past calendar year.

  Beaches (Disabled Access)
  16. Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions 1136W
  she has had with the Environment Agency about improving disabled access to beaches where flood defence work has taken place. [101128]

  Mr. Morley
  I have had no such discussions. However, I can say that the Environment Agency's Southern Region has commissioned safety consultants to undertake an R&D pilot study for the provision of disability access to EA coastal and fluvial defences.

  The report, only recently completed, proposes a common methodology for surveys on future provision of disability access. This work will contribute to a better understanding and awareness of the needs of disabled people and will further work required for developing policy.

  The Agency has also appointed recreation officers in all its regions and one of their roles is to champion access in the consideration of flood defence schemes.

  Horse Passports
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish legislation on compulsory horse passports; and if she will make a statement. [101129]

  Alun Michael
  In the next few weeks I expect to issue for comment a draft of the legislation implementing the Government's decision that all equids must have passports, as required by EU legislation.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether every country in the EU is implementing the Directive regarding horse passports; what recent discussions she has had with the European Commission on further derogation to exempt the UK from compulsory horse passports; what further consultation there will be with the UK horse industry on the implementation of the horse passport scheme; and if she will make a statement. [101253]

  Alun Michael
  Commission Decision 2000/68/EC, must be implemented by all member states and there have been no discussions with the European Commission about exempting the UK from its requirements.

  A draft of the legislation for England implementing the requirements that all horses must have passports will be issued in the next few weeks for consultation. The draft will take account of the views expressed during the discussions with the horse industry that have already taken place.

  Fishing Fleet
  18. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of the forthcoming expansion of the European Union on the economic viability of the United Kingdom's fishing fleet. [101130]

  Mr. Morley
  We do not expect the forthcoming accession of new member states to affect the economic viability of the UK fishing fleet.

  Flood Protection(Rural Areas)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the money made available to fund flood protection in rural areas in 2002–03. [101133]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra provides grant aid on capital flood and coastal defence projects that meet specified criteria and an appropriate priority score. Decisions regarding which projects to promote and their timing rests with operating authorities. It is therefore not possible to say how much of the funding has been directed to rural areas until after the financial year has ended. The figures will depend on the definition of "rural areas", as many schemes classified as "urban" are to protect communities within what would normally be considered as rural areas. ODPM allocate funding to support local authorities' expenditure on flood defence on the basis of their past expenditure.

  Flooding
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met the Environment Agency to discuss flooding. [101134]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, meets with the Environment Agency regularly to discuss a range of issues. The last time she met Sir John Harman and Baroness Young to discuss flooding was on 15 January 2003. I also hold meetings with the Environment Agency and flooding is discussed regularly. Our last meeting was held on 9 December 2002 and I am due to meet with them again later today.

  Broiler Chickens
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will commission further research on the impact of intensive rearing of broiler chickens on(a) human and (b) animal health. [101118]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to funding research to both protect the public and welfare of farmed animals. Defra currently spends £3.5 million per annum on research into food-borne zoonoses and £1.2 million per annum on poultry welfare and disease research. The Government are committed to the continuing development of a comprehensive Animal Health and Welfare Strategy which will help to inform future research priorities.

  Forestry (Africa)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department will raise the management of(a) forest products and (b) bushmeat at the forthcoming Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial Conference in April. [101324]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department will raise the subjects of the international trade in forest products and bushmeat at the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial Conference in April.
  1138W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which ministers and civil servants will attend the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial Conference in April. [101326]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK will be represented by the Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development, her Private Secretary, DFID's Senior Forestry Adviser and a representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Environmental Security Team.

  Overfishing (North Sea)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes she is proposing to the Common Fisheries Policy to tackle overfishing of white fish in the North Sea. [101125]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government stands ready to consider any proposals, beyond those already agreed, which will help to bring stocks back within safe biological limits.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress her Department has made in implementing the Rural White Paper. [101126]

  Alun Michael
  Defra is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Rural White Paper. Government continues to make good progress in delivering the commitments set out in the Rural White Paper. As of 31 December 2002, over 150 of these have been completed, or are in progress. Around 90 have targets for completion in the future.

  Meat Imports (Foot and Mouth)
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the risk of meat imports that carry foot and mouth virus. [101131]

  Mr. Morley
  Over the last year, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency has been undertaking a risk assessment to help us get a better understanding of the risk of meat imports being contaminated with foot and mouth, and infecting susceptible livestock in Great Britain. The final report is currently subject to quality assurance and peer review, prior to publication in the next few weeks.

CABINET OFFICE

  Looked-after Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Social Exclusion Unit will publish its report on the education of looked-after children; and what the reasons are for the delay in publication. [99389]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.
  1139W
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 24 February 2003, Official Report, column 261W. The report will reflect the proposals in the forthcoming Green Paper on "Children at Risk", announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30 October 2002, also due for publication in the spring.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101566]

  Mr. Alexander
  My Department does not keep central records of this information, therefore the answer can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  HAZMOD Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which company is running the HAZMOD Intranet (HI) project; how much has been spent on the project; when the project will go live; and if he will make a statement. [99381]

  Mr. Alexander
  The HAZMOD Extranet (previously referred to as HAZMOD intranet) was a small pilot project, managed by a research group within the Home Office and subsequently the Cabinet Office, which investigated the access to maps by emergency planners and others using internet technology. The project lasted two and a half years and cost £175,000.

  Recent analysis undertaken by the Cabinet Office showed that better and faster approaches to securing the same information are now available elsewhere and are already in use by a range of organisations. The Government therefore consider that it can best support local authority emergency planners through the provision of advice on the development of geographical information systems. Emergency planners at the local level will also continue to draw data from Police Commanders, who have direct access to information from central Government.

  A letter explaining the position was sent on 24 February 2003 by the Cabinet Office to all the emergency planners involved in the project. The letter was also published on the UK Resilience website www.ukresilience.info.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost was in each case. [101486]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Senior Civil Service
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what level of appraisal is required at each grade within the senior civil service; and if he will make a statement. [100590]
  1140W
  Mr. Alexander
  Each member of the Senior Civil Service is subject to an annual assessment by their manager based on the achievement of objectives, development of competences and use of professional skills. Their annual performance related pay award is based on this assessment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accountancy Firms (Competition)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has for investigating the extent of competition among the big-four accountancy firms. [100758]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As a result of a recommendation in the Interim Report of the Coordinating Group on Audit and Accounting Issues(CGAA), the Office of Fair Trading has looked at the competition implications of the high concentration in the market for audit and accountancy services following the demise of Andersens. They concluded that there was no case for an immediate Competition Commission referral or market referral, but that the market should be kept under review.

  Agricultural Produce
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the existence of market dominance on the part of purchasers of perishable raw agricultural produce in the(a) dairy, (b) livestock meat, (c) arable, (d) poultry meat, (e) horticultural and (f) other sectors. [96954]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Issues of market dominance are for the competition authorities to analyse in the first instance. Dominance, and more particularly abuse of dominance by single firms is for the Office of Fair Trading to consider under the Competition Act 1998. Problems arising from collective dominance are more likely to be dealt with by reference to the Competition Commission (CC). Over the past four years, the CC has reported on three such references. On 10 October 2000, it reported on the supply of groceries from multiple stores. On its recommendation, the Government published a Code of Practice governing relations between the large supermarkets and their suppliers.

  On 22 December 2000, the CC published a report on the supply of fresh processed milk to middle ground retailers in Scotland and on 6 July 1999, the CC published a report on the supply of raw cow's milk in Great Britain.

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has for raising the audit threshold for small and medium-sized companies. [100907]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department is carrying out a programme of research to assess the impact of the previous increased to £1 million turnover in the audit exemption threshold. The information provided will be
  1141W
  used to inform a further consultation proposed on whether the audit threshold should be increased or maintained at its current level.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the consultancy services that auditors are not permitted to sell to their audit clients. [100526]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The UK system of auditor regulation is based on principles rather than rules. The key principles are that auditors should not perform management functions or make management decisions; that auditors should not audit their own work; and that auditors should not act as advocates for their clients. There is no list of banned services in the UK.

  The recently published Final Report of the Coordinating Group on Audit and Accounting Issues deals with the issue of the provision of non-audit services by auditors to their clients, in particular in Chapter 1 (auditor independence) and Chapter 2 (corporate governance and the role of audit committee).

  Consumer Contracts Regulations
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) local authority and (b) housing association tenancy agreements have been received by the Office of Fair Trading for investigation under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. [100879]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), 11 February 2003,Official Report, column 650W.

  Defective Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have been forced to revise defective accounts by the Financial Reporting Review Panel; and how many auditors have been disciplined as a result. [100761]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since 1991, 14 companies have been required to revise their financial statements by issuing corrected accounts after investigation by the Panel. Over 50 other companies have been required to take alternative corrective action in respect of defective accounts.

  The Panel always alerts the relevant professional bodies whose members have been involved in either the preparation or audit of accounts requiring correction. It is for these bodies to decide what action is appropriate. The Panel is informed of their decisions and is aware that disciplinary action is taken in appropriate cases.

  DTI Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the DTI inspectors' reports that have not yet been presented to Parliament but have been released to third parties. [100759]
  1142W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Inspectors' reports are made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, not to Parliament.

  Financial Reporting Council
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial contribution the Government will be making to the operations of the Financial Reporting Council and its associated bodies. [100830]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Report of the Review of the Regulatory Regime of the Accountancy Profession (published on 29 January) recommended that"the annual running costs of the independent regulator should be broadly shared by Government, business and the professional bodies".

  Chapter 8 of the report, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, looks at funding issues in detail. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in her Statement on 29 January, when accepting this recommendation, that while the Government will pay its share of core running costs, she also expects companies and the profession to contribute.

  J.S. Bass Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby's correspondence with her, if she will commission an independent inquiry into the liquidation of J S Bass Group of companies. [100910]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I am not persuaded that there are any grounds to justify the commission of an independent inquiry into the liquidation of John S Bass & Co. Ltd., or other companies in the same group.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many accountants have been prosecuted by her Department for failure to report suspicions of money laundering to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. [100524]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table gives the number of defendants proceeded against in England and Wales for the offence of failing to disclose knowledge or suspicion of money laundering under section 52 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 during the period 1994 to 2001.

  It is not possible separately to identify which of these defendants are accountants in the statistics collected centrally.

  The Drug Trafficking Act offence has been replaced by section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which came into force on 24 February 2003. This new offence only applies to persons who suspect money laundering in the course of a business in the regulated sector. Accountants will be brought within the regulated sector by means of new Money Laundering Regulations to be made later this year.
  1143W

  Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of money laundering'1,England and Wales 1994 to 20012

  Defendants proceeded against

  Defendants found guilty

  1994

  —

  —

  1995

  1

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  1997

  —

  —

  1998

  —

  —

  1999

  1

  —

  20003

  1

  —

  2001

  —

  —

  1Offence is under Drug Trafficking Act 1994, Sec 52.

  2 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  3 Staffordshire Police were only able to submit sample data for persons dealt with at magistrates' courts in 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust at a detailed level and have been excluded from this table.

  Receiverships (Completion)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many receiverships, administrations and liquidations that commenced(a) more than 20 years ago and (b) more than 10 years ago have not been finalised; for what reasons they have not been finalised; and what steps her Department takes to ensure timely completion. [100828]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As of 31 January 2003 there were 18,585 liquidation cases open, of these 440 cases (2.4 per cent.) were over 36 months old. There is no information available for previous years.

  There is no information available for the length of time taken to finalise receiverships or administrations.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff were employed by the Insolvency Service in each year since 1997, and how many were inspection staff. [100015]

  Revenue cost of abatement1

  Fuel

  Carbon

  PM

  NOx

  LPG (conversion from new Euro III petrol)

  3.2

  63,000

  920

  LPG (conversion from new Euro III diesel)

  4.6

  700

  50

  Biodiesel (from recovered vegetable oil)

  0.26–0.30

  Some expected benefit. DfT plans to undertake further emissions testing work on this fuel.

  No benefit

  Biodiesel (from dedicated crops)

  0.28–0.50

  Some expected benefit. DfT plans to undertake further emissions testing work on this fuel.

  No benefit

  Bioethanol (from dedicated sugar and starch-rich crops)

  0.28–0.50

  1,200–1,800

  No benefit

  1 £ per kg—all figures approximate

  Note

  Figures for the air quality benefits of biofuels assume use as a 5 per cent. blend with conventional mineral fuels.

  A27
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the incidents of(a) fatalities and (b) serious injuries recorded on the A27 between Lewes and Polegate in each of the last 10 years. [100772]
  1144W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The numbers of staff employed in the Insolvency Service are published in the agency's Annual Report and Accounts.

  Rugby Football Union
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Office of Fair Trading on its investigation into restrictive and anticompetitive practices with respect to the Rugby Football Union. [100240]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None.

TRANSPORT

  Pollution
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost per kilogram saved of(a) carbon dioxide emissions and (b) other harmful gases arising from (i) the lower duty on LPG, (ii) the lower duty on biodiesel and (iii) the proposed 20p reduction for bioethanol [100626]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: There is a large number of factors influencing the cost of abatement of carbon dioxide and local air quality emissions. For example, the CO2 life-cycle benefits of biofuels can be heavily influenced by the feedstocks, farming practices and processing methods used to manufacture the fuel. In addition, it should be noted that LPG is promoted primarily as a means of improving air quality rather than as a carbon-saving measure.

  However, illustrative figures have been set out for carbon and the main air quality pollutants, PM10 and NOx based on current fuel duty levels for LPG and the main biofuels, where reliable emissions data exists. These figures do not take account of the other benefits of fuel diversification, such as fuel security issues, agricultural diversification and quieter engines.

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Nigel Waterson, dated 6 March 2003 I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about accidents on the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, in each of the last ten years.

  1145W
  The figures available are shown in the table below. They represent the number of accidents involving fatalities or serious injuries. When both fatal and serious injuries are involved in the

  Year

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Fatal

  4

  0

  1

  2

  3

  0

  4

  2

  3

  Serious

  5

  4

  16

  17

  9

  11

  7

  12

  14

  All the figures provided are for the length of the A27 from Ashcombe Roundabout (west of Lewes) and the A22 junction at Polegate. Prior to 1994 our records are incomplete and I am unable to provide accident figures covering those years.

  If you would like further information about accident issues on the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, the Area Manager, Mark Kumar, at our Dorking office would be pleased to help you. His telephone number is 01306 878115.

  Air Accidents
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the relationship between(a) the Warsaw Convention and (b) EC Regulation 2027/97 (Air carrier liability in the event of accidents) in (i) its present form and (ii) as it will be amended by EC Regulation 889/2002. [R][101149]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Council Regulation (EC) No. 2027/97 was adopted to provide a greater level of consumer protection than that found in the Warsaw Convention. Although the regulation applies in a different way to the Convention, legal advice presented by the European Commission at the time of adoption of the regulation indicated that the proposed Community legislation was compatible with the Warsaw Convention. Council and Parliament Regulation (EC) No. 889/2002 was adopted to align the provisions of Regulation 2027/97 with those of the Montreal Convention, except that the intention of Regulation 889/2002 is that it will apply to Community air carriers in respect of all carriage undertaken. Again, legal advice presented at the time of adoption of the amending regulation was that the proposed Community measure is compatible with both the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the different methods of securing compliance with the amended notice provisions of EC Regulation 2027/97 (air carrier liability in the event of accidents) which will apply after the Montreal Convention has come into force. [R][101150]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the UK compliance with the information provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No: 2027/97 is secured by the Air Carrier Liability Order 1998. When the date of coming-into-force of Regulation 889/2002 (which is linked to the coming-into-force of the Montreal Convention) is known, the Air Carrier Liability Order will be amended to reflect the amended Community legislation. The sanction of a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale was thought to be more appropriate than withdrawal of the right to fly or an administrative fine.

  Airports Review
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he estimates the Internal Rate of Return
  1146W
  same accident, it is recorded in the highest severity classification (ie fatality).

  and Net Benefit assessed for Packages 20 and 21 in Annex D of the February 2003 South East and East of England Regional Air Services (SERAS) document would be affected by a requirement that a developer should bear (a) 15 per cent. (b) 25 per cent. and (c) 30 per cent. of the surface access cost associated with those packages as assessed at SERAS Stages 2 and 3. [100860]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The capital costs of the options at Gatwick and Cliffe used for the economic and financial appraisals of SERAS packages 20 and 21 included 100 per cent. of the costs of the surface access schemes associated with the airport development. The surface access schemes and costs for the two and four runway options at Cliffe are specified in Table 11.3 of the SERAS Stage 2 report and for the two single runway options at Gatwick in Table 2.2 of the SERAS Stage 3 report.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be able to provide an assessment of the changes to passenger mileage travelled by(a) bus, (b) coach, (c) train and (d) private car in the counties surrounding London consequent on the introduction of congestion charging. [100746]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Transport for London will be assessing the effect of congestion charging on transport patterns within the London area, and intend to publish a comprehensive report early next year.

  Finsbury Park Station
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost of investment is in the refurbishment of Finsbury Park Station by(a) the Department and (b) other sources; and if he will make a statement on progress of the scheme. [100270]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that London Underground Limited are currently reviewing options for refurbishing Finsbury Park station, in conjunction with Transport for London, the London Borough of Islington and Network Rail.

  London Underground
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss the SRA Plan 2003, with particular reference to the proposals for the extension of London Underground's East London Line. [100896]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers regularly meet the Chairman of the SRA to discuss a variety of matters. The business case for the East London Line Extension is currently being considered. I hope an announcement will be made shortly.
  1147W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the London Underground PPP, Consortia, and their component companies, for new legislation to restrain the Mayor of London and Transport for London in their operations; how he has responded; and if he will make a statement. [100997]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State is not proposing to legislate to constrain the Mayor or Transport for London in their operations, and has not received any representations that he should. The Government have proposed legislation, in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill currently before the House, to ensure that when London Underground is transferred to Transport for London, its contracts can continue to operate as intended.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the starting date is for full operation of the contract with Tube Lines and each of the two contracts with Metronet as part of the London Underground PPP; and if he will make a statement. [100998]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The contract with Tube Lines was completed on 31 December 2002. The Government expects the contracts with Metronet to be completed this spring.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the benchmarks relating to average performance on the London Underground are; how they were arrived at; if he will make a statement on their significance; at what level in relation to those benchmarks the infrastructure companies in the London Underground PPP can operate without incurring a penalty; and if he will make a statement; [101003]

  (2) how the figures at the commencement of the London Underground PPP contracts for the measurement of (a) bonuses and abatements and (b) passenger compensation will be determined for (i) lost customer hours and (ii) attributable delays; what the initial standards will be; and if he will make a statement. [101002]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 19 December 2001,Official Report, columns 508–09W.

  The payment of refunds to passengers under London Underground's Customer Charter is not a matter for the infrastructure companies and is therefore not covered by the PPP contracts.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to alter the period of the contract with the London Underground PPP Infrastructure Consortia; and if he will make a statement. [101749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Montreal Convention
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the United Kingdom will ratify the Montreal Convention.[R] [101151]
  1148W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The United Kingdom will ratify the Montreal Convention when all 15 member states of the EU are in a position to do so simultaneously. Although the UK stands ready to deposit its instrument of ratification, a number of member states are not.

  Railways
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason public funds are being used to pay for the rectification of the shortage of power on the rail network in southern England; why the power supply problems were not realised at the time the order for new trains was placed; when the power supply upgrade will be completed; what effect he estimates this will have on the Government's target for increasing passenger traffic in the coming decade; and if he will make a statement. [100301]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The power supply upgrade is necessary to allow new trains to be introduced which will replace Mark 1 rolling stock, as required by the Railway Safety Regulations 1999. The Strategic Rail Authority is working with Network Rail on an approach to funding the upgrade that does not require the investment of public funds. The belated appreciation of the need for the upgrade reflected a failure of communication within the industry. The first phase of the power supply upgrade began in 2002 and is forecast to continue through to 2005. The upgrade is not in itself expected to affect the volume of passenger traffic on the network.

  Road Improvements
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he gives to the Highways Agency on assessing road improvement schemes associated with accident black spots. [103393]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency are responsible for monitoring and analysing accidents on the Trunk Road network, and taking appropriate action. "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone" gives guidance on the Governments safety strategy and sets casualty reduction targets for 2010, including those that are to be achieved by the Highways Agency.

  A number of techniques are used to analyse and assess prospective improvements, but it is for the Highways Agency to decide which are used to determine the types of road safety schemes and priorities.

  South West Trains
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new trains are on order to South West Trains; how many of the new trains are expected to enter service on schedule; and if he will make a statement. [100299]

  Mr. Jamieson
  South West Trains have 785 new vehicles on order. The first new trains are expected to enter service in spring 2003 subject to completion of all necessary testing. Thereafter new trains will enter service on a regular basis through to the end of 2004 subject to power supply availability.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will reply to the letter of 28 November 2002 from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central on the collection and recording of information on pupils' ethnic background. [100288]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for School Standards replied to my hon. Friend's letter of 28 November 2002 on 28 February.

  Number of CDLs by course type—1998

  Age range

  Under 20

  20–29

  30–39

  40–49

  Over 49

  Total

  Commercial and Professional

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  4

  Computer Skills

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  6

  Management

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Driving Occupations

  —

  2

  5

  1

  2

  10

  Post Graduate (other)

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sport Leisure and Tourism

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  1

  8

  10

  3

  2

  24

  Number of CDLs by course type—1999

  Age range

  Under 20

  20–29

  30–39

  40–49

  Over 49

  Total

  Commercial and Professional

  —

  5

  1

  —

  —

  6

  Computer Skills

  —

  3

  5

  —

  —

  8

  Driving Occupations

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  Art and Drama

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Environment Studies

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Service/Selling occupations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Science and technology

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Other

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Total

  —

  12

  10

  1

  2

  25

  Number of CDLs by course type—2000

  Age range

  Under 20

  20–29

  30–39

  40–49

  Over 49

  Total

  Commercial and Professional

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Computer Skills

  —

  13

  13

  3

  1

  30

  Health, Training, Welfare

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Management

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Driving Occupations

  2

  —

  2

  —

  4

  Art and Drama

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Environment Studies

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Flying Occupations

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Science and technology

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Other

  —

  6

  —

  1

  7

  Total

  2

  30

  13

  6

  1

  52

  Number of CDLs by course type—2001

  Age range

  Under 20

  20–29

  30–39

  40–49

  Over 49

  Total

  Commercial and Professional

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Computer Skills

  —

  16

  7

  4

  —

  27

  Health, Training, Welfare

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  4

  Management

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Driving Occupations

  —

  1

  3

  —

  4

  Environment Studies

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sport/Leisure/Tourism

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  General Career Counselling

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  —

  21

  13

  8

  —

  42

  Career Development Loans
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people obtained career development loans in Redcar and Cleveland in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) age and (b) course studied. [101223]

  Margaret Hodge
  The following tables show the number of people in the Redcar and Cleveland area who have been awarded a Career Development Loan (CDL), for every year since 1998. The tables break down the awards into age groups, and show the type of learning that the CDL was intended to help fund. Information is not collected on the actual course studied.
  1151W

  Number of CDLs by course type—2002

  Age range

  Under 20

  20–29

  30–39

  40–49

  Over 49

  Total

  Computer Skills

  1

  8

  10

  4

  2

  25

  Health, Training, Welfare

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  4

  management

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Driving Occupations

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  3

  Art and Drama

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Environment Studies

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Other

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  4

  Total

  1

  15

  14

  8

  3

  41

  Note

  These tables cover postcodes starting TS5, TS6 and TS10–14 inclusive, as confirmed with the borough of Redcar and Cleveland.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action is taken to publicise the availability of career development loans. [101224]

  Margaret Hodge
  Since they were launched in 1988 Career Development Loans (CDLs) have helped over 180,000 people fund vocational learning to improve their career prospects. CDLs are publicised via the CDL website on the Department's website, by learning providers, and participating banks. Information is also available via learndirect, Learning and Skills Councils, Information Advice and Guidance partnerships and various publications such as the leaflet "money to learn", the BBC's Career Essentials booklet and CDL advertising posters sent to learning providers and Jobcentres. The most recent national press publicity campaign was carried out in 1998. As CDLs are being considered as part of the review of funding of adult learning, there are no plans to further publicise the programme at present.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in the borough of Redcar and Cleveland(a) applied for and (b) obtained career development loans in each of the last five years; and what the rate of default is on repayment in each of the last three years. [101225]

  Margaret Hodge
  The exact number of Career Development Loan (CDL) applications by people in the borough of Redcar and Cleveland is not known. The rate of successful applications varies between the banks, but the overall success rate is around 75 per cent. of applications received. The number of successful applications in each year since 1998 is as follows:

  Number

  1998

  24

  1999

  25

  2000

  52

  2001

  42

  2002

  41

  Note

  This table covers postcodes starting TS5, TS6 and TS10–14 inclusive, as confirmed with the borough of Redcar and Cleveland

  The net default rate on CDLs taken out in the borough of Redcar and Cleveland is:

  2000–4.0 per cent

  2001–6.23 per cent.

  2002—no loans have defaulted to date
  1152W
  The national underlying net default rate for CDLs since the programme began is 10.13 per cent. This compares to the 15 per cent. maximum operating default limit agreed with the banks to cover the higher level of risk they take in making these particular loans.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance the Department gives for(a) rates of repayment and (b) income levels for the commencement of the repayment of career development loans. [101226]

  Margaret Hodge
  Career Development Loans (CDLs) are commercial bank loans and the rates of repayment are decided by the participating banks. The banks have an agreement with the Department that the interest rate they charge will normally be no greater than the interest rate applicable to their normal personal loans, at the time that the CDL was granted.

  CDLs are not income-contingent therefore the Department does not give any guidance to the participating banks on income levels for starting repayment. However, an individual may be able to postpone the start of their repayments for up to 17 months if, when they are due to start repaying they are:
  unemployed and claiming related benefits;
  employed and receiving certain benefits (such as Income Support);
  taking part in a Government Training programme and in receipt of a training Allowance; or
  still attending the course for longer than expected due to ill health or other special circumstances.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on the proposed funding for schools to employ classroom assistants; when this money will be paid; and how much each(a) primary and (b) secondary school in (i) Lincolnshire, (ii) Nottinghamshire, (iii) Leicestershire and (iv) Boston and Skegness constituency will receive; [95703]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the proposed funding for schools to employ persons under the rural area student teacher placement apprenticeship scheme; when this money will be paid; and how much each (a) primary and (b) secondary school in (i) Lincolnshire,
  (ii) Nottinghamshire, (iii) Leicestershire and (iv) Boston and Skegness constituency will receive. [95704]
  1153W
  Mr. Miliband
  The Government are committed to remodelling the school workforce in support of high quality teaching and learning. As part of this process, we are providing sufficient funding to enable schools to recruit at least 50,000 new full-time equivalent support staff over the course of this Parliament. The overall increase in revenue funding for schools, after specific identified pressures have been taken into account, will be £1.1 billion in 2003–04, £2 billion in 2004–05 and £3 billion in 2005–06—schools will be able to use some of this additional funding for workforce reform, including recruiting additional teaching assistants and other support staff members, if they choose to. These increases in funding are in addition to existing school budgets which many schools are already using to remodel the school workforce and recruit new support staff. Decisions about how many support staff to recruit, and the roles they fulfil, will continue to be taken by individual schools.

  For 2003–04 we are making available to authorities a total of –268 million (at 50 per cent. grant rate) to specifically cover the costs of recruiting school support staff (including teaching assistants) and extra administrative help, particularly for small schools. Of this £4,254,627 will go to Lincolnshire, £4,343,284 to Nottinghamshire and £3,155,825 to Leicestershire. The grant must be fully devolved to schools but it will be for LEAs to decide how to devolve this funding to schools. We therefore have no information available on Boston and Skegness constituency or on individual schools.

  I am unaware of the rural area student placement apprenticeship scheme to which the hon. Member refers.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are in place for departmental and Funding Council monitoring of the access arrangements to higher education institutions. [100156]

  Margaret Hodge
  Access to higher education institutions is monitored through the Performance Indicators published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  IT Provision
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government's policy is on the provision of disabled people's IT needs; and if he will make a statement. [98697]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]: All education and training provided through my Department, including IT training, is available to disabled people.

  Since the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 came into force in September 2002 it has been unlawful to discriminate against disabled students by treating them less favourably than others. In addition, responsible bodies have a duty to provide reasonable adjustments to provision where disabled students might otherwise be substantially disadvantaged. From September 2003 that duty will include adjustments involving the provision of auxiliary aids and services.
  1154W
  My Department is working with the Disability Rights Commission, the Learning and Skills Council, the Higher Education Funding Council and other partners in the post-16 sector, to help providers implement the new duties with additional funding, guidance and training. £172 million has been allocated over the years 2002–04 to support this work.

  Provision of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

  E learning and ICT can help disabled learners, and we recognise that the provision of assistive technologies can make a significant impact on their lives. My Department is working with the Department for Work and Pensions to improve coherence of access to and delivery of ICT equipment, services and information for disabled people. This is particularly relevant as they move from education to employment. It would also enable disabled people to use ICT provided for learning to also be used for employment or leisure.

  Many of the 6,000 plus UK online centres are equipped to meet the immediate, basic, access requirements of a large majority of learners. Some centres are specifically targeted at groups of people with disabilities to encourage not only learning but also inclusion into society. Work is currently under way to provide centres with adaptive technologies and training to enable them to provide a better service for disabled users. We will be evaluating their usage next year.

  Ufi/learndirect are implementing a specialist disability specific service for learning centres and individual learners, available through the learndirect help-line. The service is provided by AbilityNet, a national charity and the UK's leading provider of expertise on computing and disability, offering advice, information and guidance on hardware and software applications to improve accessibility and usability.

DEFENCE

  Animals(Armed Forces)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals, broken down by species, are employed by the armed forces; and in what capacity they are used. [100369]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Armed Forces employ 1,175 dogs and 452 horses. Dogs are categorised as Protection dogs, used to guard military installations etc and Specialist dogs, used to detect specific items, eg arms, explosives, drugs. Horses are all used in ceremonial roles.

  Armed Forces Recruitment
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the restrictions on prospective soldiers who have served time in prison from joining the armed forces. [101164]

  Dr. Moonie
  All three Services apply the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in considering applications from ex-prisoners. At the present time there are no plans to change any restrictions on joining the armed forces.

  Aviation Security
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the impact on the armed forces of the potential use of hand-held surface to air missiles on aviation security. [100718]

  Mr. Ingram
  The lead responsibility for counterterrorism in the United Kingdom rests with the Home Office and the police. They work closely with the Department for Transport and the transport industries to counter threats against civil aviation and other transport mfrastmcture. As well as being responsible for the security of our own estate and assets, the Ministry of Defence provides support to the civil authorities ni responding to the terrorist threat, through the use of the Armed Forces and the provision of scientific and technical expertise. In particular, we have, on a number of occasions, provided support to the police in enhancing civil aviation security, most recently during the security alert at Heathrow last month. Similar support will be made available in future should the need arise.

  Diego Garcia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the current deployment is of British forces in Diego Garcia; and under whose command they operate; [100274]

  (2) how many UK forces are normally deployed in Diego Garcia, broken down by rank; and how many, broken down by rank, are currently deployed. [101236]

  Mr. Ingram
  The standard scheme of compliment of the Naval Party on Diego Garcia is 41 personnel, consisting of three officers, including Britmilrep, and 38 other ranks.

  The current deployed strength which carries out civil administration of the territory on behalf of the Commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory is 39 personnel. These personnel are currently under the operational command (OPCOM) of Commander-in-Chief Fleet, but on 1 April 2003 they will come under the command of the Chief of Joint Operations as part of a rationalisation of operational command responsibilities.

  The personnel broken down by rank is as follows:

  1 x Commander RN

  1 x Major RM

  1 x Captain RM

  Other ranks—Navy

  2 x Chief Petty Officers

  3 x Regulating Petty Officers

  12 x Leading Hands

  Other ranks—Royal Marines

  1 x Colour Sergeant

  1 x Sergeant

  5 x Corporals

  12 x Marines

  Extended Range Ordnance/ Modular Charge System
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a new in-service date has been decided for the extended range ordnance/modular charge system; and if he will make a statement. [99803]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: The In Service Date for the Extended Range Ordnance/ Modular Charge System is under review as a result of technical difficulties that have been experienced with the programme.

  Initial Training
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Ministry of Defence's(a) suggested and (b) average supervisory ratios for initial training are; and if he will make a statement. [100172]

  Mr. Ingram
  I assume that by initial training the hon. Member is referring to both Phase 1 training (recruit training) and Phase 2 training (initial specialist training).

  There are two aspects of supervision: formal training class size and pastoral care out of working hours. The level of supervision varies accordingly, such that meaningful data on average ratios is not readily available. The Ministry of Defence does not currently recommend supervisory ratios.

  In the case of class size, while there are no formal guidelines, there is a general acceptance of a benchmark ratio of 1:16. Actual class size varies by Service and depends on the subject being taught, the nature of the training activity and the facilities available.

  For pastoral care out of working hours, individual commanders across the Services set the ratios they deem appropriate to meet the needs of recruits and their training organisations. However, there is general agreement that a ratio of 1:12 is appropriate for Phase 1 training and this is broadly in place across the Services. In the case of Phase 2 training, these ratios increase and there are wider differences in Service practice. Current ranges of Phase 2 pastoral care staff/trainee ratios are as follows:

  RN—1:25 to 1:50

  RM—1:12

  Army—1:40 to 1:75

  RAF—1:16 to 1:32

  The recent Appraisal of Initial Training by the Directorate of Operational Capability announced on 10 February 2003 recommended that central direction be introduced on supervisory ratios of initial training. An action plan was published at the same time to carry forward this and the report's other recommendations.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list IT contracts in his Department above £50 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [98997]
  1157W
  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Meteor Programme
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated total cost to the UK for its share of the Meteor programme is; what the total estimated cost was in(a) May 2002 and (b) December 2002; how many Meteor missiles will be procured by his Department; and how many missiles were on order in (i) May 2002 and (ii)December 2002. [99601]

  Mr. Ingram
  The current estimated total cost to the United Kingdom for its share in the Meteor programme is £1.16 billion (at outturn prices); this is the same as the forecast in December 2002. The forecast in May 2002 was £1.13 billion. The £30 million increase is solely due to the transfer of 5 per cent. of the development programme workshare from Germany to the United Kingdom.

  The United Kingdom is currently the only nation to have placed an order for production missiles. I am withholding details on the numbers being procured in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations. However, our requirements have not changed since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced (in May 2000) that Meteor had been selected to meet our Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM) requirement. We expect to order additional quantities of Meteor on behalf of the other Partner Nations, once they have confirmed their production requirements.

  The Development and Production contract was placed with MBDA on 23 December 2002 and as such no missiles were on order in May 2002.

  MOD Vehicle Fleet
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the annual rate is at which his Department renews its vehicle fleet, by(a) volume and (b) percentage for each category of (i) vehicle, (ii) type of power unit, and (iii) type of fuel; [97972]

  (2) what the annual rate is at which the Army renews its on road vehicle fleet, by (a) volume and (b) percentage for each category of (i) vehicle, (ii) type of power unit, and (iii) type of fuel; [97974]

  (3) what the annual rate is at which the Royal Navy renews its on road vehicle fleet, by (a) volume and (b) percentage for each (i) category of vehicle, (ii) type of power unit, and (iii) type of fuel; [97976]

  (4) what the annual rate is at which the Royal Air Force renews its on road vehicle fleet, by (a) volume and (b) percentage for each (i) category of vehicle, (ii) type of power unit and (iii) type of fuel. [97978]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's nonoperational fleet, which might be regarded as the road vehicle fleet, is supplied under the terms of a contract for service provision and the Department does not own the fleet.
  1158W
  MOD also operates a large range of operational vehicle fleets. These fleets are not replaced under a rolling programme, but on the basis of the operational capability requirements of the Department. The information requested is not held centrally for these fleets and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  When procuring new operational vehicles MOD ensures compliance with current domestic and EU legislation and the current NATO single fuel policy. Since the acceptance and implementation of this policy by the UK in 1991, all operational vehicles procured are propelled by diesel engines with the capability to use aviation fuel (Avtur) in operational theatre. All in-service operational vehicles are either fitted with diesel engines or are subject to dieselisation programmes.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what progress has been made, by(a) volume and (b) percentage for each category of (i) vehicle, (ii) type of power unit and (iii) type of fuel, on an annual basis, over each of the past three years, in renewal of his Department's vehicle fleet on a lower emission basis; [97973]

  (2) what progress has been made, by (a) volume and (b) percentage for each category of (i) vehicle, (ii) type of power unit and (iii) type of fuel, on an annual basis, over each of the past three years, in renewal of the Royal Navy's vehicle fleet on a lower emission basis; [97977]

  (3) what progress has been made, by (a) volume and (b) percentage for each category of (i) vehicle, (ii) type of power unit and (iii) type of fuel, on an annual basis, over each of the past three years, in renewal of the Army's vehicle fleet on a lower emission basis; [97975]

  (4) what progress has been made by (a) volume and (b) percentage for each category of (i) vehicle, (ii) type of power unit and (iii) type of fuel, on an annual basis, over each of the past three years, in renewal of the Royal Air Force's vehicle fleet on a lower emission basis. [97979]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence operates a large and diverse vehicle fleet. The detailed information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Reducing vehicle emissions is a key transport issue, which has been agreed as a priority across Government. Against a baseline year of 2002–03, all Departments are aiming by 31 March 2006 to reduce road transport vehicle carbon dioxide emissions by at least 10 per cent. and requiring at least 10 per cent. of all fleet cars to be alternatively fuelled.

  Progress against these targets will be reported in the Sustainable Development in Government annual report. The first full report against the Framework will be in 2003, reporting against the baseline year of 2002–03.

  MOD is committed to complying with the letter and spirit of UK air pollution control policy and legislation, including that derived from EC Directives on vehicle emissions. A copy of the relevant Joint Service Publication—418—can be found in the Library of the House.
  1159W
  In addition, as part of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate, MOD has published a draft transport strategy, which includes targets and measures to (i) reduce the total business mileage of land-vehicles; (ii) improve the average fuel efficiency of land-vehicles; and (iii) reduce total fuel consumed, including working with our contractors for the non-operational fleet and hire cars to demonstrate increasing use of alternatively fuelled vehicles.

  New projects for equipment acquisition are required to adhere to the spirit of the MOD travel strategy.

  A copy of the draft MOD travel strategy can be found at: http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/dsef/sus_dev/sdt_strategy.pdf.

  Naval Hulls
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the hulls of Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels of the(a) Leaf, (b) Rover and (c) Wave classes are categorised as (i) single, (ii) single reinforced and (iii) double. [98717]

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RFA Ships have a double hull. [99146]

  Mr. Ingram
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary Leaf and Rover Class vessels are single hulled and are fully compliant with current regulations and hold valid IOPP (International Oil Pollution Prevention) certificates.

  The Ministry of Defence's policy remains that, where practicable, we will comply with standards required by legislation. The implementation of a recent amendment to the regulations will, however, result in RFA tankers becoming non-compliant with MARPOL (the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 and the Protocol of 1978). A programme is in place to replace progressively the RFA single hulled tanker fleet which, subject to sufficient funding being identified, will result in MOD reaching compliance by 2010.

  The WAVE Class has been built in accordance with current regulations for new tankers and are therefore double hulled.

  None of the current RFA Fleet is double-hulled. However, the two new WAVE CLASS RFAs, that are undergoing trials before they enter service this spring, have been built with double-hulls.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training and guidance is being given to British troops and hygiene units on the use of organophosphate pesticides in any potential conflict with Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [94733]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 3 February 2003]: Guidance on the safe and effective use of pesticides, including organophosphate insecticides, is provided in the Joint Services Manual on Pest Control. This covers safety requirements including the use of protective equipment, and states that insecticides may only be used
  1160W
  by appropriately trained personnel. Environmental health briefs are issued to British forces deploying to the Gulf region as part of routine preparations.

  Peacekeeping Duties
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British personnel are on peacekeeping duties, broken down by(a) regiment and (b) location. [101170]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are presently some 3,400 British personnel deployed on peacekeeping operations throughout the world; some 500 are deployed to six UN operations, around 2,600 are deployed in support of NATO operations in the Balkans, and approximately 300 are deployed to Kabul as part of the International Security and Assistance Force(ISAF).

  The core of the United Kingdom's contribution to the UN Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) is provided by elements from 47th Regiment Royal Artillery. The United Kingdom's commitment to the Balkans includes a Battalion in Bosnia and Herzegovina, currently 1st Battalion The Royal Scots, and a Battalion in Kosovo, currently 1st Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment. The 21st Engineer Regiment provides a Squadron in Bosnia and 26th Engineer Regiment provides a Squadron in Kosovo. In Afghanistan, a Company from 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment will shortly provide the key United Kingdom contribution to ISAF.

  The bulk of Service personnel on peacekeeping duties are not deployed as part of formed regiments. They fulfil a variety of command, specialised and supporting roles, such as engineering, communications and logistics for formed national and multi-national headquarters.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the number of personnel on peacekeeping operations in(a) Bosnia, (b) Kosovo, (c) Sierra Leone and (d) Afghanistan. [101171]

  Mr. Ingram
  In Bosnia and Kosovo we intend to reduce by the spring to the levels my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in September last year. In keeping with the reductions in SFOR (Bosnia) and KFOR (Kosovo) planned as part of NATO's review of peacekeeping operations, the United Kingdom is reducing its forces from some 4,350 troops in September last year to some 2,500 by the spring of this—some 1,500 in Bosnia and 900 in Kosovo.

  The UK provides 21 UK personnel to the UN Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), which is responsible for providing assistance to the Government of Sierra Leone in order to maintain law, order, peace and stability throughout the country. There are currently around 14,000 troops in UNAMSIL, which is expected to draw down by mid-2004.

  There are currently no plans to reduce the number of personnel in Afghanistan.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the £200 million to be received from the first stage of the PPP involving QinetiQ is net of the estimated £80 million restructuring costs; how much more he estimates the MOD will receive from the sale of QinetiQ(a) as a gross figure and (b) net of costs;

  1161W
  whether the £80 million costs incurred is an increase on his Department's initial estimate for the PPP; and if he will make a statement. [99598]

  Dr. Moonie
  The £200 million to be received from the sale of a stake in QinetiQ to The Carlyle Group is a gross figure. Of the approximately £80 million costs of the PPP process, around £58 million were incurred by either the DERA Trading Fund or by QinetiQ plc. The impact of these costs is shown in QinetiQ's accounts and would have been taken into consideration by the purchaser when valuing the company. The £200 million receipt from the initial transaction therefore already includes any adjustment resulting from these costs. The remaining £19 million costs incurred directly by the Ministry of Defence (in addition to some £3 million borne by the Dstl trading fund) should be deducted from the £200 million receipt in order to determine MOD's net proceeds from the transaction so far. It would however be misleading to view these costs solely in the context of the initial receipt as a significant proportion of them relate to the formation of QinetiQ as a separate commercial entity and consequently they need to be assessed against the total receipts from all stages of the PPP process.

  Any attempt to produce a precise estimate of likely proceeds or costs arising from the future sale of our remaining stake in QinetiQ would be purely speculative at this stage. The size of receipt is likely to be hundreds of millions of pounds, but will depend on the commercial success of the company as well as market conditions at the time of transaction. Although we anticipate that the sale will take place by means of a flotation in around three to five years, the final choice of timing and transaction will depend on value for money considerations. This choice will have an influence on the costs which are incurred.

  The total cost of £80 million is in line with the estimate given to the HCDC in May 2001. This estimate included an approximate expected cost of some £6.5 million for consultancy advice to MOD on the whole DERA PPP, but we now expect the final total for this element of the costs to be around £17 million. A significant proportion of this increase results from additional work necessary to respond to difficult market conditions. This included the need to keep open both the options of a flotation as well as a strategic partnership. Extra work was also carried out to analyse and apportion liabilities following loss of capacity in the insurance markets after the events of 11 September 2001.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, column 687W, on QinetiQ, when he expects his Department to receive payment of the £100 million outstanding. [99599]

  Dr. Moonie
  When QinetiQ was created as a plc it purchased assets from the Ministry of Defence with a combination of shares and an obligation in the form of an interest bearing loan note to pay a further £150 million to the MOD. QinetiQ paid £50 million principal plus accrued interest in February 2002.

  As part of the transaction with The Carlyle Group, a further £50 million of the loan notes will be repaid before the end of this financial year (2002–03). The
  1162W
  remaining £50 million is secured against property at Chertsey and will be repaid to the MOD as payments are received from the sale. The detailed timings of these payments are still the subject of commercial negotiations with potential purchasers.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated market value of QinetiQ is; and what the value of the company was on 1July 2001. [99602]

  Dr. Moonie
  Carlyle placed an overall enterprise value on the company of £500 million following a competitive sale process. The £500 million was based on the futurecash-flows of the business and did not take into account liabilities, other obligations or outstanding debt. The liabilities, other obligations and outstanding debt were £375 million leaving an equity value for the business of £125 million.

  When QinetiQ was vested as a plc in July 2001 it was required to purchase its assets from the Ministry of Defence. At this point there was no means to establish the market value of the business, and the price paid for the assets was based on the net book value of £495 million shown in QinetiQ's accounts. It is important to note that this figure does not reflect the value of QinetiQ as an ongoing business nor, given the very specialised nature of many of QinetiQ's assets, does it reflect their potential sale value on the open market.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the most recent pro forma accounts for QinetiQ. [99603]

  Dr. Moonie
  QinetiQ was formed as a public limited company on 1 July 2001. In accordance with the Companies Act 1985 publication of accounts is the responsibility of the plc's management. The next full year accounting period end for QinetiQ is 31 March 2003 and QinetiQ's management will be required to publish these results within the timescales laid down in the Companies Act 1985. The Ministry of Defence cannot independently publish pro forma accounts for the plc.

  RAF (Overflight Rights)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries have refused the UK's armed forces overfly rights in the last three months; and what reasons were provided in each case. [100150]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no countries that have refused to grant the United Kingdom armed forces overflight rights. Diplomatic clearance is sought, through normal channels, on an individual basis for each flight.

  RAF Continuous Attitude Survey
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 25 February, ref. 99186, where and how the RAF Continuous Attitude Survey was published in September 2002; and if he will make a statement. [101369]

  Dr. Moonie
  The RAF continuous General Attitude Survey was published for limited internal use only in September 2002; a copy was not placed in the Library of
  1163W
  the House. We are currently reviewing the range of survey material to release and appropriate ways of putting it in the public domain.

  RAF Fairford
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the operational status is of RAF Fairford. [101172]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF Fairford is a NATO designated standby base made available to the United States Visiting Force. We have recently agreed to a US request to deploy 14 B-52 aircraft to RAF Fairford as part of our contingency planning designed to maintain the flexibility of our military options. The deployment does not represent a decision to take military action.

  The use of United Kingdom bases, including RAF Fairford, by US forces for combat operations against Iraq would be a matter for joint decision by the UK and US Governments at the appropriate time.

  Reservists
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many inquiries from(a) reservists and (b) the families of reservists he has received concerning miscalculation of their enhanced pay since being called up. [101231]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the(a) allowances and (b) enhanced pay paid to reservists were last increased. [101232]

  Dr. Moonie
  Pay levels for members of the armed forces (including the reserve forces) are set by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB), whose annual report was published on 7 February 2003. A copy is available in the Library of the House. Its recommendations have been accepted in full, and will come into force on 1 April with the exception of the changes to Longer Separated Service Allowance (LSSA) and Longer Service at Sea Bonus (LSSB), which were implemented on I March.

  Those allowances not set by the AFPRB are reviewed biannually by the Ministry of Defence, with changes usually coming into effect in August.

  When called out into permanent service, reservists receive the same basic pay and allowances as their regular counterparts. In addition, members of the reserve forces whose civilian earnings are greater than their military pay may claim financial assistance under regulations set out in the Reserve Forces (Call-Out and Recall) (Financial Assistance) Regulations 1997 (Statutory Instrument 1997/309).

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to lay orders before the House increasing the allowances and enhanced pay to reservists. [101233]

  Dr. Moonie
  Directed letters setting out the new pay rates for reservists, as well as the levels of training bounty, were dispatched on 24 February. These reflect 1164W
  the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's report of 7 February, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  The regulations governing financial assistance for reservists ("The Reserve Forces (Call-Out and Recall) (Financial Assistance) Regulations 1997"—SI 1997/ 309) are currently under review.

  South Korea
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British personnel are attached to the United Nations staff in South Korea. [101163]

  Mr. Ingram
  One British Naval lieutenant is currently working for the United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission (UNCMAC) on a six month attachment. In addition, the Defence Attaché (a Brigadier) and the Naval/Air Attaché (a Group Captain) are accredited to UNCMAC in their capacities as Commonwealth Member of the MAC and Chief of the UK Advisory Group respectively.

  US Ballistic Missile Defence
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what timetable has been set for a decision on the upgrade and use of(a) RAF Fylingdales and (b) RAF Menwith Hill as part of the US Administration's Ballistic Missile Defence System. [99912]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I informed the House on 5 February 2003,Official Report, columns 11–12WS, the Government has agreed to the US Administration's request to upgrade the early warning radar at RAF Fylingdales for missile defence purposes. The upgrade work is expected to begin towards the end of this year and take about two years to complete.

  In advance of the work beginning, the Government needs to negotiate a detailed agreement with the US covering both the upgrade itself and future arrangements for the upgraded radar, while the US also need to undertake comprehensive design work, site surveys, budgetary planning and other preparatory work.

  No request has been received for the use of RAF Menwith Hill for missile defence purposes.

  US Bases
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist for members of the US National Guard to be deployed at US bases in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [101235]

  Mr. Ingram
  Any deployment of members of the US National Guard to bases made available to the US Visiting Force in the United Kingdom falls within the arrangements laid down by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement 1951.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Community Legal Services
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment has
  1165W
  been made of the impact of Amendment 3 of the Community Legal Services (Financial) Regulations 2001; and what assessment has been made of the impact on people with disposable incomes of between £263 and £695 per month. [100465]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Amendment 3 of the Community Legal Services (Financial) Regulations 2001 revised the financial eligibility criteria for Community Legal Service (CLS) funding. The primary intentions behind the eligibility reforms were to simplify the procedure for gaining Legal Representation (while broadly preserving the numbers qualifying), and to bring the eligibility level for Legal Help closer to that for Legal Representation.

  Data provided by the Legal Services Research Centre from its applicant survey showed that if we are to target the most needy, the gross income cap should be maintained and certain state benefits should be disregarded from the gross income test.

  The impact on people with a disposable income between £263 and £695 per month who are required to make a contribution to their funding has been limited. There has been no significant increase in the mean contribution required.

  HM Land Registry
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the market value is of each property owned by HM Land Registry; how many staff work in each office; and if she will make a statement. [99826]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Land Registry's policy is to obtain a professional valuation of its freehold and long leasehold land and buildings every three years. In the intervening years, the figures are updated by "desktop" valuations. The last full valuation was carried out in January 2002 and the market value for each of the Registry's freehold buildings from that valuation is shown in the following table.

  Freehold property

  Market value 2002(£)

  Southfield House, Durham

  3,700,000

  Earle House, Hull

  1,640,000

  Birkenhead House, Lytham

  3,900,000

  Old Market House, Birkenhead

  3,550,000

  Warton Camp, Lytham

  4,400,000

  Lincoln's Inn Fields

  8,970,000

  Forest Court, Tunbridge Wells

  6,850,000

  Brickdale House, Stevenage

  6,000,000

  Henlow Camp, Stevenage

  150,000

  St. Andrew's Court, Portsmouth

  5,319,000

  Plumer House, Plymouth

  5,500,000

  Drake's Hill Court, Plymouth

  1,676,000

  Ty Bryn Glas, Swansea

  2,825,000

  Manselton, Swansea

  50,000

  Parkside Court, Telford

  4,195,000

  Rosebrae Court, Birkenhead

  4,985,000

  Boldon House, Durham

  3,400,000

  Melcombe Court, Weymouth

  5,400,000

  Chalfont Drive, Nottingham

  4,000,000

  Westbridge Place, Leicester

  4,500,000

  The current staffing level at each of the Land Registry's offices is listed as follows. Part-time staff have been treated as whole units.
  1166W

  Land Registry Office

  Staffing

  Birkenhead (Old Market House)

  319

  Birkenhead (Rosebrae)

  269

  Coventry

  349

  Croydon

  233

  Durham (Boldon)

  357

  Durham (Southfield)

  401

  Gloucester

  492

  Harrow

  274

  Hull

  338

  Lancashire

  219

  Leicester

  319

  Lytham

  366

  Nottingham (East)

  307

  Nottingham (West)

  421

  Peterborough

  463

  Plymouth

  440

  Portsmouth

  285

  Stevenage

  424

  Swansea

  291

  Telford

  367

  Tunbridge Wells

  315

  Wales

  430

  Weymouth

  425

  York

  155

  Headquarters

  334

  Computer Services, Plymouth

  389

  Land Charges

  89

  Legal Aid Budget
  Mr, Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the Legal Aid budget was in 1996; and what the budget is this year. [95481]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I apologise for the delay in replying. For the financial year 1996–97, provision for Legal Aid was £1,456 million; provision for this financial year (2002–03) is £1,871 million.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent on publicly funded legal services in each year from 1989–90 to 2003–04 (planned), in real terms at 2000–01 prices; and if she will make a statement. [99828]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The figures requested, covering the period from 1989–90 to 2002–03, are shown in the table in real terms at 2000–01 prices. Plans for 2003–04 are not yet finalised. Expenditure options are being considered in the light of the Department's Spending Review settlement.

  Net Expenditure in Cash Terms

  £ million

  Civil

  Criminal

  Total

  1989–90

  339

  476

  815

  1990–91

  400

  515

  915

  1991–92

  548

  596

  1,144

  1992–93

  717

  619

  1,336

  1993–94

  815

  629

  1,444

  1994–95

  860

  670

  1,530

  1995–96

  887

  705

  1,592

  1996–97

  897

  739

  1,636

  1997–98

  851

  790

  1,641

  1998–99

  884

  816

  1,700

  1999–2000

  786

  801

  1,587

  1167W

  Net Expenditure in Cash Terms

  £ million

  Civil

  Criminal

  Total

  2000–01

  791

  873

  1,664

  2001–02

  717

  959

  1,676

  2002–031

  776

  1,053

  1,829

  1 Estimated.

  The implementation of the Access to Justice Act has brought a measure of control to civil public funding and enabled the private sector to support money claims, thereby leaving public funding to help tackle social exclusion and support families. The increase in criminal public funding contributes towards the Government's agenda for tackling crime and improving confidence in the criminal justice system.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the success of warrant enforcement by the magistrates courts committees since 1 April 2001. [99873]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are wide variations in the performance of the magistrates courts committees (MCCs). Some are very successful while the performance of others is completely unacceptable.

  The MCCs are independent bodies, however, the new Performance Contracts, which are being set for next year, will enable each MCC to receive extra resources conditional on their improved performance and that their future plans are credible and achievable.

  My Department is currently in the process of encouraging the sharing of good practice among the MCC community. The poorer performing MCCs are getting increased support and have met with Ministers to discuss their concerns and future plans.

  There are new provisions in the Courts Bill including new powers to improve fine enforcement and the Unified Administration which will introduce a proper performance management framework to address unacceptable performance.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the procedure for the collection of outstanding fines imposed by magistrates' courts. [99872]

  Yvette Cooper
  On 1 April 2001, MCCs took on formal responsibility from police forces for executing all fines and breach warrants. MCCs employ a variety of approaches to enforce fines and other payments. They may employ their own civilian enforcement officers, contract work out to approved enforcement agencies, contract work back to the local police force or use a combination of these methods. Some MCCs also use private bailiffs, as meets their local needs.

  Motor Injury Claims
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will 1168W
  introduce legislation to set a minimum limit for disability suffered before court actions arising from motor injury claims may be proceeded with. [100305]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government have no plans to introduce legislation in this area.

  Special Advisers/Press Officers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) on a contract basis by her Department in (A) 2001–02 and (B) 2002–03. [97946]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [pursuant to the answer, 13 February 2003, Official Report, c. 978W]I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 20W. The Lord Chancellor's Department has one special adviser who was employed full-time during 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  All press officers were employed full-time during 2001–02 and 2002–03. The Lord Chancellor's Department has not employed any press officers on a part-time or contract basis.

  Unpaid Fines
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will issue guidance to magistrates courts committees on the recovery of outstanding fines imposed by magistrates courts. [100336]

  Yvette Cooper
  Guidance on the enforcement of financial penalties was issued in 1996 (amended in 1997) and a revised version issued in 2001 following the transfer of responsibility of warrant execution. The guidance is currently being updated and consolidated.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessments have been made of the economic and social impact of the 2002 Commonwealth Games on(a) the city of Manchester and (1)) the UK. [100341]

  Mr. Caborn
  A full economic and social impact assessment of the 2002 Commonwealth Games was commissioned by Manchester city council. The study was undertaken by Cambridge Policy Consultants (CPC) and identified the impact of the Games at a range of spatial— levels East Manchester, North West and the UK.

  The full report and executive summary was published in April 2002, and was made available to all key partners. The executive summary was publicly available, and the full report was available by request. The executive summary was then revised post-Games by CPC to assess the robustness of their original analysis. The revised summary was made available in October 2002. Work is under-way on the development of an

  1169W
  evaluation framework which will continue to measure the legacy of the Games. I will arrange for copies of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Public Sector Funders and Manchester 2002 defined the following shared objectives in relation to the Games:
  To position the UK as a Centre of International Sport, and to demonstrate the UK's ability to host a major international sporting event. To view the games as one means of strengthening sports participation at all levels
  To strengthen the economic and social capacity of the City/ Region, recognising the importance of capturing maximum benefits to justify the significant capital investment in facilities
  To advance policies for greater social inclusion, promotion of diversity, access to sport and volunteering
  To showcase Britain internationally and to raise the profile of the Commonwealth

  An assessment of how well these objectives were achieved was included in an independent 'lessons learned' report, jointly commissioned by my Department, Manchester city council and Sport England in June 2002.

  This full published report can be viewed on the DCMS website at www.culture.gov.uk.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in increasing Lottery funds allocated to coalfield areas. [100291]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have encouraged Lottery distributors to work with each other and with local organisations and agencies to increase the capacity within coalfield areas to produce successful Lottery applications. In addition, a number of coalfield areas are benefiting from the Fair Share Initiative launched in June 2001. Prior to the Lottery reforms in August 1998, the amount awarded per capita to coalfield areas was approximately 45 per cent. of the amount awarded to Great Britain on a per capita basis since the Lottery's inception. This figure had increased to 62 per cent. by November 2002.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list Lottery grants awarded to projects connected with(a) mental health among young people and (b) combating antisocial behaviour. [100773]

  Mr. Caborn
  Lottery distributors have funded a range of projects connected with mental health among young people and combating anti-social behaviour. For example, the New Opportunities Fund Healthy Living Centres programme has made awards worth over £204 million to 257 projects in England. Of these, 75 per cent. stated on their application forms that they would be undertaking work to promote good mental health. A significant number of these schemes are also working with young people.

  The New Opportunities Fund has made £38.75 million available to its Activities for Young People programme, which has opened up opportunities for school leavers who are at risk of social exclusion. The
  1170W
  Fund has also awarded £8.8 million to the Youth Justice Board to run projects engaging young people most at risk of offending through a diverse range of activities.

  The Community Fund has estimated that, over the last 12 months, it has made 94 grants totalling £7,699,694 to projects aimed at young people with mental health issues, and 60 grants totalling £6,203,333 to projects aimed at combating anti-social behaviour among young people.

  Obesity
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what local exercise action pilots have been introduced by Sport England in collaboration with the Countryside Agency and the Department of Health to tackle obesity and increase physical activity. [100425]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Local Exercise Action Pilots Programme is a joint initiative funded by the Department of Health, Sport England and the Countryside Agency, with support from the Local Government Association, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and Skills and Department for Transport. Nine local Primary Care Trust led pilots are being developed to test out and investigate effective approaches to increasing access to, and levels of, physical activity. The pilot sites will be announced this month.

  Sports Participation
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to increase the number of(a) Muslim and (b) Asian people involved in (i) sport and (ii) contact sports; and if she will make a statement. [100587]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England provides a range of programmes to promote accessibility to sport for marginalised groups. The monies allocated for this purpose will in future be administered in the regions which will improve the targeting of funds to where they are most needed, including to the Muslim and Asian communities where appropriate.

  DCMS also part funds the initiative Sporting Equals, a collaboration of Sport England and The Commission for Racial Equality to promote racial equality in sport.

  Through their policy document Game Plan, Government are concentrating efforts to lessen the barriers to participation of the most sedentary groups, and in this way will tackle sporting marginalisation in other key groups including those from ethnic minorities.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of whether UN Security Council Resolution 1325 is being implemented in the work of reconstruction in Afghanistan. [101227]
  1171W
  Clare Short
  The international community continues to support enhanced protection of Women's rights in Afghanistan following the fall of the Taliban. A key milestone will be the forthcoming draft of the new constitution, to be presented at the Constitutional Loya Jirga. The international community (including the UK and the EU) are working to ensure that women's rights are fully protected in the constitution.

  Progress on improving women's rights varies according to locality, but there are encouraging signs in many areas. Approximately 3 million children have now returned to school, of whom about 30 per cent are girls. However, the proportion of women and girls involved in education varies according to region.

  The position of vulnerable women, such as widows and orphans, is still a major concern, particularly in urban areas. WFP and FAO are hoping to expand their employment and livelihood activities (bakery and poultry co-operatives that recruit vulnerable women and girls) in an effort to improve the situation.

  Kyrgyzstan
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will grant additional resources to the Kyrgyzstan police project above the money already awarded. [99446]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have agreed to support the second phase of an Organisation for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) police assistance project in Kyrgyzstan.

  Her Majesty's Government's Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) has so far pledged voluntary funding of 400,000 over two Financial Years. This support of the second phase, however, is conditional upon sufficient pledges from other states being offered to make it reasonably certain that the project can be completed.

  Oil for Food Programme
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the cost of the aid that would be required to replace the Oil for Food Programme following a military campaign in Iraq. [100290]

  Clare Short
  60 per cent. of the Iraqi population are dependent on the UN Oil For Food Programme. Current annual expenditures under the programme run at around $10 billion, the largest elements of which are the food allocation ($3 billion) and basic service delivery supplies (health, education, water and sanitation and electricity— $2 billion). Should there be conflict, the UK will aim to minimise any disruption to the programme and work towards its re-establishment as quickly as possible.

  Poverty Reduction Strategies
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to increase the participation of civil society in poverty reduction strategies. [99340]
  1172W
  Clare Short
  DFID provides support directly through country programmes and indirectly through Partnership Programme Agreements to build up the capacity of civil society organisations in developing countries to engage in PRS processes. For example Catholic Church institutions have played a significant role in the PRS process in Zambia.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what policy her Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100939]

  Clare Short
  DFID has a no smoking policy throughout our offices, except in designated smoking rooms/areas that are equipped with specific individual smoke extraction and ventilation systems.

  Sudan
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to address the humanitarian situation in the Southern Blue Nile region of Southern Sudan. [100970]

  Clare Short
  We have not funded any interventions in Southern Blue Nile recently. Our humanitarian support is targeted accorded to demonstrated humanitarian need. If these needs are found in Southern Blue Nile we will certainly consider making a response.

  A number of recent assessments have taken place (e.g. a joint World Food Programme/UNICEF team visited the region 17–23 February); their findings, once they are made known, will inform our decisions. Our representative in the British Embassy in Khartoum liaises with the UN and other agencies working in-country to keep our information up to date.

  Swaziland
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact she estimates the national crop survey conducted by the World Food Programme and Food and Agriculture Organisation findings will have on the levels of aid provided by her Department in Swaziland. [100918]

  Clare Short
  The recent preliminary crop assessments by the Food and Agriculture Organisation have indicated that there will be another very poor harvest in the lowveld. Over the last year we have already provided £250,000 to the World Food Programme for their humanitarian operations in Swaziland. We are finalising support to both UNICEF (£200,000) to improve the water and sanitation facilities at 80 schools, and to Save the Children (£70,000) to provide a livelihoods economist to help plan recovery programmes in the most vulnerable areas.

  Once more reliable figures for this harvest are available we will consider further support through the World Food Programme's regional humanitarian programme covering also Mozambique, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Lesotho, and Angola.

  Zimbabwe
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes her Department
  1173W
  will make to its humanitarian aid programme in Zimbabwe as a result of the announcement of the Famine Early Warning Systems Network that food aid will be required for another 12 months. [100973]

  Clare Short
  It has been evident for some months that food production in Zimbabwe would be affected for the third year in succession by the combination of disruption to farming; economic policies that are a disincentive to production; lack of agricultural credit and inputs, and patchy rains. Current DFID and WFP feeding programmes extend until June 2003. DFID is already working with the international community to assess needs for the year ahead, and to identify the extent to which the international community needs to assist in meeting the gap.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the President of the Council what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100922]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department has adopted a nonsmoking policy. Smoking is not allowed in communal and working areas and is permitted only in the designated areas provided. This policy applies to staff working in both 9 Downing street and 2 Carlton Gardens.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Solicitor General what the reasons were for the change in total public spending on the Crown Prosecution Service between 1998–99 and 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [99831]

  Financial year April to April

  Active caseload at year end

  Trials completed in year

  Number of defendants in trials completed

  Number of convictions in trials completed (by defendant)

  Annual total cost £million

  1988–89

  66

  9

  14

  10

  6.86

  1989–90

  61

  17

  32

  24

  9.21

  1990–91

  56

  27

  72

  45

  13.19

  1991–92

  60

  28

  58

  38

  17.71

  1992–93

  57

  25

  49

  35

  20.99

  1993–94

  48

  23

  54

  32

  19.03

  1994–95

  50

  13

  31

  16

  18.03

  1995–96

  70

  11

  23

  18

  17.33

  1996–97

  82

  8

  14

  12

  16.58

  1997–98

  78

  14

  39

  37

  16.3

  1998–99

  65

  18

  38

  31

  16.1

  1999–2000

  81

  8

  12

  11

  15.9

  2000–01

  70

  24

  58

  51

  19.7

  2001–02

  75

  8

  13

  10

  23.03

  2002–03

  72

  13

  26

  17

  128.09

  Total

  991

  246

  519

  377

  258.05

  1Provisional

  I draw attention to the second column of the table 'Active Caseload at Year End', where the figures represent those cases actually under investigation, those awaiting trial and those where a trial had been commenced but had not been formally concluded with a verdict or verdicts. I feel the other statistics speak for themselves.
  1174W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: Since 1998–99 funding for the Crown Prosecution Service has increased, both in response to increasing workload and to support the departmental reform and modernisation programme.

  As part of the SR 2000 Spending Review plans, the Treasury created a Criminal Justice Reserve worth £100 million in 2001–02 and £525 million over the three years up to 2003–04. We are investing in the CPS an additional £30 million in 2001–02, £59 million in 2002–03 and £76 million in 2003–04 from the Reserve.

  The increase in funding allowed the Crown Prosecution Service to recruit the lawyers and caseworkers needed to handle more cases, better, and provided for programmes and initiatives dealing with victims and witnesses and information technology. The Crown Prosecution Service has successfully completed the first stage of its programme to modernise IT, electronic communications systems and the office environment for approximately 6,800 staff across 100 sites.

  The CPS will also focus resources on closer partnership, working with the police by providing early advice and assuming responsibility for charging.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Solicitor General how many(a) investigations and (b) prosecutions by the Serious Fraud Office there were in each year since 1988; how many prosecutions led to a conviction in each year; what the total cost was; and if she will make a statement. [99832]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: The following table provides all the relevant Serious Fraud Office statistics in relation to investigations, prosecutions and the total cost from the inception of the SFO in April 1988 to date (end of February 2003).

  Since its inception, the conviction rate of the Serious Fraud Office as an average, is 84 per cent. by number of trials in which at least one defendant was found guilty and 73 per cent. by number of defendants, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree is a respectable record.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to encourage Afghanistan to ratify CEDAW. [101228]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We believe that adherence to international human rights norms, including the UN Charter and CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which a previous Afghan Government signed in 1980, but did not ratify) are key to restoring the rights of women in Afghanistan.

  We continue to encourage the Afghan Transitional Administration to work towards ratification of CEDAW. We raised this most recently with the Afghan Minister for Women, Habiba Sarabi, when she visited the UK from 9–15 February 2003. We also co-sponsored the 2002 UN Commission on the Status of Women Resolution on Afghanistan, which urged the Afghan authorities to give high priority to ratification of CEDAW, and to consider signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made on women's access to justice in Afghanistan. [101230]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Lack of capacity in the judicial and legal sector means that access to justice remains difficult for all Afghans. Women face particular problems including in exercising their rights to property and to divorce. Women are represented on the Drafting Committee of the Constitutional Commission, tasked with drafting a new constitution, and on the Judicial Commission, responsible for overseeing development of the legal system. This should help to ensure that women's needs are taken into account in the reform process.

  We have recently pledged £1 million to support the United Nations Development Programme's work on rebuilding the justice sector in Afghanistan, in partnership with the Judicial Commission. A major focus of their work will be to improve women's access to justice.

  Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to encourage signatories to the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention to monitor their compliance with its terms. [100251]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The first meeting of BWC technical experts, which will take place in Geneva from 18 to 29 August this year, will focus on national implementation, including penal legislation and bio-security. This meeting will provide a major opportunity to encourage states parties to take steps to monitor their own compliance with the Convention.

  The UK will table papers setting out some of the specific requirements which may need to be included in national measures to implement the Convention and in
  1176W
  penal legislation. We will use our own experience in health, safety and physical security legislation to outline minimum standards for other states parties to follow, where they are presently without comparable legislation. The UK will also use this meeting to argue the case for a sustained international process to encourage all states parties to put in place legislation and effective measures to ensure implementation of the Convention.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter to him dated 28 January 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. John Meah. [100683]

  Mr. Straw
  I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not replying to his earlier letter. This was due to a clerical error. I will write to him about Mr. Meah's case this week.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 16 January regarding a constituent. [101086]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have replied to my hon. Friend. There was a delay in reply due to an administrative oversight and I apologise for that.

  Falun Gong
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Chinese Government's attempts under Article 23 legislation to curtail the practice of Falun Gong in Hong Kong without consultation with the people of Hong Kong; and whether this is in contravention of safeguards given to the people of Hong Kong when the territory was returned to China. [100470]

  Mr. Rammell
  Under Article 23 of the basic law, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government is required to "enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies".

  The SAR Government published a consultation document outlining its proposals to implement this requirement on 24 September 2002. Following a public consultation exercise lasting three months, the SAR Government published draft legislation on 14 February 2003. This incorporated several changes to the initial proposals, in response to concerns expressed during the consultation period. We welcome this demonstration of the SAR Government's willingness to take account of views expressed. The legislation has now been submitted to the Legislative Council (LegCo). It is anticipated that there will be lengthy discussions in LegCo, including public hearings, before the legislation is agreed. Once the law has come into force, any decisions made on the implementation of the new legislation will be open

  1177W
  to judicial review in the Hong Kong courts which, under the "One Country, Two Systems" policy, are independent from the legal system in mainland China.

  We issued statements about the original proposals in November 2002. In these, we referred to concerns in Hong Kong about the outline proposals concerning the proscription of organisations. These concerns were voiced by many individuals and organisations, including Falun Gong. We are now studying the precise wording of the draft legislation. We have, however, noted that the Hong Kong Secretaries for Justice and Security have both said that this legislation would not be aimed at imposing sanctions on any group such as the Falun Gong.

  On a visit to Hong Kong in January 2003, I discussed Article 23 in some detail with senior members of the SAR Government. I made clear to them our concerns about the proposals. On a visit to Beijing before arriving in Hong Kong, I also took the opportunity to discuss Article 23 with Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister, Zhang Yesui.

  The SAR Government have given repeated assurances that the final legislation will be compatible with the basic rights and freedoms laid down in the Joint Declaration and guaranteed by the basic law. These include the requirement that the legislation will be compatible with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is vital for the future prosperity of Hong Kong that its people and the international community perceive this to be the case when legislation is finally passed. We shall continue to watch this crucial issue very carefully.

  United States
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what joint foreign policy initiatives have been(a) planned and (b) agreed with the US Administration in the last 12 months. [100392]

  Mr. Rammell
  We work in close collaboration with the US on a wide range of foreign policy issues including, for example, the war on terrorism and the security sector reform of Afghanistan.

  We work particularly closely with the United States on international security, economic and third world development policy, and will continue to do so in the future.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his 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. [99589]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 27 January 2003,Official Report, column 567W on FCO expenditure on entertainment. Overseas missions and UK departments are allocated budgets which they are free to assign to purposes such as entertainment in order
  1178W
  best to achieve their objectives. They also reallocate within their overall budget as the year passes. So there is no centrally-administered entertainment budget which would be underspent at the year's end.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Indonesian Attorney General's Office on the case of Mr. Peters and Mr. Rennie since August 2000. [100469]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In August 2001, the then Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) raised our concerns about the Balibo murders with the Indonesian Attorney General when he visited Indonesia. In August 2002, the EU, at our request, urged the Attorney General to co-operate with the UN investigation. On 7 October 2002, the EU Presidency gave the Attorney General a copy of the letter from the UN Special Representative to East Timor requesting Indonesian co-operation in the investigation.

  Iraq
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken on UN Resolution 57/232 on human rights and Iraq. [101229]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) today (UIN 100931).

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking in support of the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 57/232 of December 2002. [100931]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK helped to draft and sponsored this resolution, which condemns the appalling human rights situation in Iraq. Together with international partners, we take every opportunity to raise the human rights situation in Iraq. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's report on Iraq's human rights violations, published on 2 December 2002, exposes the sheer brutality of the Iraqi regime.

  We also take practical measures to protect those suffering repression. We take part in patrols of the northern and southern No Fly Zones. These were established in support of UN Security Council Resolution 688 to prevent Saddam Hussein from once again repressing the people in those regions.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with the Israeli government on(a) the imprisonment of citizens for refusal to serve in the occupied territories and (b) Palestinians held in custody without charge. [99999]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly raise with the Israeli authorities our concerns about their holding Palestinians in custody without charge. Israel, like all states, has the right to defend itself against terrorism, but it must act within international law.
  1179W
  We have not lobbied Israel about Israeli citizens imprisoned for refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Israeli Government on compensation of the UN for the destruction of food aid supplies on 30 November 2002. [99989]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We deplore the destruction of a World Food Programme storage facility in Gaza on 2 December 2002 by the Israel Defence Forces. Food aid, including EU-funded contributions, was destroyed. The EU has raised its concerns with the Israeli Government about the destruction of infrastructure and goods funded by the EU and wider international community in the Occupied Territories, and has discussed the issue of compensation to the World Food Programme for the destruction of the Gaza warehouse. The European Commission is responsible for monitoring and costing damage to EU-funded aid projects, and the EU reserves the right to seek compensation.

  Myanmar
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of Myanmar regarding(a) human rights violations and (b) the use of forced child labour. [100583]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In November 2002, the UK cosponsored a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly condemning the human rights situation in Burma, including the use of forced labour there. I issued a press statement strongly supporting the resolution. With EU colleagues, we are currently drafting a resolution on human rights in Burma for presentation at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We will also be taking action at the March 2003 meeting of the International Labour Organisation to make clear our concern that forced labour in Burma remains widespread and systemic.

  Small Arms
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government is providing to countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans to(a) address the proliferation of small arms in their regions, (b) reduce their availability and (c) strengthen controls on their transfer. [99543]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK's Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) strategy, jointly funded by FCO, DFID and MOD, supports a range of initiatives tackling both the supply and demand for small arms. From the £20 million allocated to SALW under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool in 2001–04, £7.5 million has been allocated to United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to provide advice, support and technical assistance for global weapons collection, management and destruction programme. This work includes projects in Albania and Kosovo, where UNDP has organised public destruction of weapons, awareness raising, voluntary surrender of 1180W
  arms in return for development projects and training for law enforcement and security officials. It also covers UNDP support for the South Eastern Europe Clearing House for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SEESAC), which is working towards the implementation of a regional Stability Pact Implementation Plan to combat the proliferation of SALW and related munitions.

  Since the start of 2001, inter-departmental UK Government teams have in addition visited Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia and Montenegro to exchange information on and offer advice with export control policy and procedures.

  In addition, HMG funds work by the NGO Saferworld with governments and civil society to combat small arms proliferation in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the work of the Small Arms Survey which publishes a yearbook on global small arms issues that includes Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

  Small Arms
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations his Department is making for the July 2003 Biennial Meeting on national, regional and global implementation of the UN Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons. [100007]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are committed to a successful and productive first Biennial Meeting on the implementation of the Programme of Action (PoA) of the 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its respects. The formal meeting in July is limited to looking at work that has been undertaken in the last two years in implementation of the PoA. It is not a negotiating meeting. The UK has an excellent track record in initiatives to curb the proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), and we will be preparing a report that details its active work, including its use of the £20 million we have committed (2001–04) to this work.

  But we will also be taking advantage of the Biennial Meeting to take forward the work we started at Lancaster House on strengthening export controls on small arms on 14 to 15 January 2003. The Conference itself is a major part of the UK's preparation for the meeting, and we will widen that contribution to include states that did not attend. We are currently preparing the ground for that work.

  Brazil
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Brazil regarding the disappearance of street children. [100205]

  Mr. Rammell
  We maintain an on-going dialogue with Brazil on human rights issues covering both the international and domestic dimension. Our embassy in Brasilia are in regular touch with relevant Brazilian institutions on a range of human rights concerns, including allegations of abuses against the most vulnerable groups in Brazil such as women, the indigenous and street children. We attach particular
  1181W
  importance to work with the Brazilian Police Service and Prison Service where there remain a number of important human rights concerns to be addressed.

  I look forward to taking these discussions forward when I next visit Brazil in May 2003.

  Turkey
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with his Turkish counterpart concerning the decision of the Turkish parliament on their Government's request to allow UN troops to use Turkey as a place from which to attack Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [101234]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not discussed the decision of the Turkish Parliament on the deployment to Turkey of foreign troops with his Turkish counterpart.

  West Papua
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Indonesia on human rights abuses in West Papua; and if he will make a statement. [100275]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Shortly after the murder of Papuan leader, Theys Eluay, in November 2001, a representative of the British embassy in Jakarta met the Coordinating Minister for Security and Political Affairs and the Minister for the Development of Eastern Indonesia to raise our concern and disappointment, and to call for a thorough investigation. The EU issued a statement expressing its concern at Theys Eluay's murder. The UK also took part in an EU mission to Papua in March 2002 to examine the issue of human rights, and met Indonesian Government officials in Papua to voice our concerns. British embassy staff regularly visit Papua and raise the issue of human rights with Indonesian Government representatives there.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  BBC (Ulster-Scots)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Linguistic Diversity Branch of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has offered guidance to the BBC in Northern Ireland on how, as a public service broadcaster, it might meet the obligations of the Council of Europe Charter for Regional and Minority Languages in relation to the Ulster-Scots language. [100441]

  Angela Smith
  The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages does not place specific obligations on public service broadcasters in relation to the Ulster-Scots language. Linguistic Diversity Branch has however engaged with the BBC in meetings at both production and managerial level aimed at encouraging increased awareness of the Ulster-Scots language and culture and UK Government commitments in relation to linguistic diversity.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Part R of the Northern Ireland Building Regulations will be revised. [101004]

  Mr. Pearson
  In line with normal practice, work on the revision of Part R of the Northern Ireland Building Regulations will commence when the amended Regulations in respect of access for disabled people are published in England and Wales.

  Industrial and Provident Society Legislation
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reform Industrial and Provident Society legislation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [87885]

  Mr. Pearson
  As I advised in my replies to questions Nos. 86628 and 86630, I announced on 29 November details of a major review of Industrial and Provident Society law in Northern Ireland. It is timely to carry out such a review to ensure that legislation meets the needs of members and a modern Northern Ireland economy, and work has already commenced.

  Post-primary Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Department of Education officials are involved in the Review of Post Primary Education; and how officials in the Department are progressing the issue of pupil profiles contained in the Review of Post-Primary Education in Northern Ireland. [88795]

  Jane Kennedy
  A team of 11 officials, including support staff, is taking forward the Review of Post-Primary Education. No decisions have been taken about pupil profiles. This is one of the issues for discussion in my round of meetings with political parties and in the meetings between Department of Education officials, the education sector and representatives of parents to discuss the next steps in the post-primary review.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if it is his policy to retain a system of selection in post-primary education; and if he will make a statement. [88921]

  Jane Kennedy
  No decisions have been taken about selection in post-primary education. In the responses to consultation a range of suggestions were made for future post-primary arrangements, including options involving academic selection. I am currently meeting political parties and Department of Education officials have met with the education sector and will be meeting representatives of parents, to discuss these options and the next steps in the post-primary review.

  Springvale Campus Project
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Springvale Campus project Outline Business Case has satisfied the Treasury Taskforce Guidelines with respect to signing off criteria. [100067]

  Jane Kennedy
  In the preparation of the Outline Business Case (OBC) for the Main Campus of the Springvale project the University of Ulster determined that the project was not affordable or viable from its
  1183W
  perspective. Consequently, no OBC was presented to the Department for Employment and Learning for assessment.

  Stranmillis College
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to legislate to regularise the legal standing of Stranmillis College under devolution. [100065]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Employment and Learning, in consultation with the Board of Governors, is currently considering whether to recommend any change to the legal status of Stranmillis University College.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of the fuel allowance in 2001–02. [99152]

  Mr. McCartney
  Latest estimated figures for winter 2001/2 show that expenditure on Winter Fuel Payments was £1.7 billion.

  Pension Fund Trustees
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what requirement is placed or is planned to be placed upon pension fund trustees who state that account is taken of the social, ethical and environmental issues to report to members on performance and outcome. [99264]

  Mr. McCartney
  Section 35 of the Pensions Act 1995 requires trustees to produce a Statement of Investment Principles in which they are required to state the extent to which social, environmental or ethical considerations are taken into account. They are also required to produce an annual investment report.

  From March 2003, we are undertaking an evaluation of pension scheme trustees' investment decision-making in the light of the Myners report on institutional investment in the UK. Information on socially responsible investment will also be collected as part of this evaluation, and we will consider whether further measures are appropriate following that review.

  Benefit Payments
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he has given to the Benefits Agency regarding the payment of benefits from April in cash from Post Offices. [98080]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on 27 January 2003,Official Report, column 650W.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to publicise the availability of Post Office card accounts to those who wish their benefits to be paid in cash at Post Offices; and if he will make a statement. [98081]
  1184W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Customers will be supplied with information which clearly sets out their account options and enables them to freely choose the account which is right for them. This information will include details on accounts available at Post Office
  branches.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many investigations of(a) incidents and (b) complaints were carried out by local offices of the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [97948]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 13 February 2003]: The following table shows the number of investigations of incidents and complaints carried out by HSE's operational directorates 1997–98 to 2001–02:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  FOD

  Incidents

  10,631

  7,805

  9,754

  14,279

  12,455

  Complaints

  20,653

  20,916

  23,878

  24,386

  23,729

  HID

  Incidents

  747

  808

  793

  773

  1,090

  Complaints

  538

  471

  411

  489

  473

  RI

  Incidents

  342

  340

  332

  371

  450

  Complaints

  489

  428

  394

  546

  317

  Total

  Incidents

  11,720

  8,953

  10,879

  15,423

  13,995

  Complaints

  21,680

  21,815

  24,683

  25,421

  24,519

  Notes:

  1. 'Incidents' includes injuries, diseases, dangerous occurrences and gas safety incidents.

  2. FOD: Field Operations Directorate; HID: Hazardous Installations Directorate;

  RI: Railways Inspectorate.

  3. The data are not available for all HSE's offices for each year in the form requested. Even where data by office is available it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  4. The figures do not include details of investigations of incidents at civil nuclear sites as these are not recorded centrally in an easily retrievable form. They could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his 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. [99519]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department does not allocate specific budgets for hospitality. For the Department's expenditure on hospitality I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), on the 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 21–22W.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what hospitality has been offered at public expense in the last 12 months, by each Minister in his Department to outside interest groups, broken down to(a) restaurant, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case; [99595]
  1185W
  (2) what criteria Ministers in his Department use when determining whether to offer hospitality in restaurants to interest groups at public expense; and if he will make a statement; [99594]

  (3) how often Ministers in his Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups. [99518]

  Mr. McCartney
  All offers of hospitality are made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting. The giving and receiving of hospitality is conducted fully in accordance with the guidance set out in the Ministerial Code, and Guidance on Contacts with Outside Interest Groups including Lobbyists. The detailed information requested is not held centrally, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Maternity Pay
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the change in statutory maternity pay in real terms from 1995–96 to 2003–04 (planned); what his estimate is of the amount of this benefit received by each decile of the UK income distribution; and if he will make a statement. [97360]

  Maria Eagle
  Employers pay Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) to employees who meet the qualifying conditions. Currently it is paid for a total of 18 weeks; the first six weeks at a weekly rate equal to 90 per cent. of the woman's average weekly earnings and the remaining 12 weeks at £75.00. For women expecting babies on or after 6 April 2003, the payment period will be extended to 26 weeks. In addition from 6 April 2003, the weekly rate for all women (payable after the first six weeks) will be increased to £100, unless this is more than 90 per cent. of her average weekly earnings, in which case payment continues at the 90 per cent. rate.

  The available information is in the table.

  Benefit expenditure: Statutory Maternity Pay (GB) 1995–96 to 2003–04

  £ million, 2002–03 prices

  Outturn

  1995–96

  628

  1996–97

  1396

  1997–98

  565

  1998–99

  606

  1999–2000

  617

  2000–01

  664

  Estimated outturn

  2001–02

  673

  Planned

  2002–03

  697

  2003–04

  946

  1 This figure includes a re-statement, by the Government Actuary, of estimated recoveries over preceding years.

  Notes:

  1. Reliable estimates of benefit received by decile of income distribution are not available.

  2. On average employers are compensated for 93 per cent. of SMP paid to employees. The table does not include the amount for which employers are not compensated.

  Source:

  Benefit expenditure tables, pre-Budget report 2002.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the cost of minimum income guarantee in the last three years. [100529]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is shown in the table below:

  £ million

  Cash terms

  Real terms (2002–03)

  2000–01 outturn

  4,095

  4,288

  2001–02 estimated outturn1

  4,486

  4,598

  2002–03 plans

  4,470

  4,470

  1Exenditure for 2001–02 reflects the latest estimate of out turn for the year and not the amounts voted by Parliament.

  Notes:

  All estimates are consistent with the PBR2002 forecasts

  Pension Forecasts
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have requested a pension forecast more than six months before reaching pensionable age, in each of the last five years for which records are available. [99954]

  Mr. McCartney
  A customer can obtain a pension forecast until they are within four months of State pension retirement age. The only figures we have available are people who have applied for forecasts who are more than four months from state pension retirement age, rather than six months.

  Number of forecasts sent to customers per year

  Financial year

  Number of forecasts produced

  1997–98

  570,522

  1998–99

  537,198

  1999–2000

  557,976

  2000–01

  622,104

  2001–02

  620,794

  RPFT have also produced 579,273 forecasts this financial year up to, and including 31 January 2003.

  Pensioners
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of(a) take-up and (b) administrative cost of Minimum Income Guarantee of pensioners in the last three years. [100528]

  Mr. McCartney
  The latest available estimate of take-up of Minimum Income Guarantee relates to financial year 1999–2000 and is presented in the DWP report "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-up in 1999–2000". A copy of the publication is available in the Library. The next edition of the report containing statistics for 2000–2001 will be released on 27 March 2003.

  Information about the administrative cost of the minimum income guarantee is not currently available in the format requested. The Department now accounts for its administration and benefit expenditure by Strategic Objective, as set out in its Public Service

  1187W
  Agreements (PSA), and by individual Requests for Resources (RfRs), as set out in the Departmental Estimates and Accounts.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 13 February

  Quintiles of the Income distribution

  Bottom fifth

  Next fifth

  Middle fifth

  Next fifth

  Top fifth

  Overall mean

  Net income before housing costs

  Pensioner couples

  136

  171

  211

  274

  476

  282

  Single pensioners

  78

  107

  132

  164

  231

  151

  Net income after housing costs

  Pensioner couples

  123

  150

  184

  261

  464

  262

  Single pensioners

  61

  85

  104

  132

  198

  127

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are from the Pensioners' Incomes Series 2000–01, which uses data from the Family Resources Survey 2000–01, and is the latest year for which results are available. The survey covers Great Britain and does not include people living in residential care or nursing homes.

  2. Incomes are in £ per week and are at 2000–01 prices.

  3. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 1.

  4. Single pensioners are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over state pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women). Pensioner couples are defined as couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over state pension age.

  5. Pensioner units are allocated to an age category according to the age of the head. The head of a couple is defined as the man.

  6. The distribution of income is based on unequivalised net income (unequivalised income refers to the actual cash amount directly received by pensioner units), and has been calculated separately under the before and after housing costs measures of income. The distribution of income has also been calculated separately for singles and couples, e.g. estimates for pensioner couples show income for each quintile of the pensioner couples' income distribution.

  7. As with data from any survey, these estimates should not be treated as exact as they are subject to sampling error. In particular, great care should be taken when comparing groups with similar incomes since random sampling fluctuations mean that estimates should be regarded as a broad indication of trends only.

  Second Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) of 9 January 2003,Official Report, column 362W, on second pensions, if he will place in the Library the research that shows combined pension forecasts have the potential to encourage many people to save more. [92509]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2003, to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley),Official Report, column 362W, on second pensions, if he will make a statement on the research on the impact of occupational pension forecasts; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [92051]

  Mr. McCartney
  The combined pension forecasting service, an initiative jointly pursued by the Department for Work and Pensions and the pensions industry with the support of the Association of British Insurers and National Association of Pension Funds, was introduced following a series of pilot exercises with representatives from the private sector.

  During the pilot phase, almost 33,500 combined statements were issued. Individual detailed results demonstrating the impact of the combined statement and their potential to encourage people to save more for their retirement are commercially sensitive. We do not have the permission of all the participating companies to release all the data. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to publish this information. However, in total some
  1188W
  2003, Official Report, column 967–68W, on pensions, what the median income is of each quintile of the income distribution for pensioners over 80. [99728]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the following table.

  The median net income of pensioner units aged 80 and above by quintile of the net income distribution, 2000–01.

  98 per cent. of those who received a forecast found it useful and 31 per cent. sought further information about increasing their pension provision.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that people of working age have the information they need to help them take personal responsibility and plan for their financial future.

  Currently the combined pensions forecast service is a voluntary one. Our proposals in the Green Paper "Simplicity, Security and Choice: working and saving for retirement", Cm 5677, would place a statutory requirement on employers and pension providers to issue combined pension forecasts which would ensure that the total potential audience enjoys the benefits of the service. We are consulting on this.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Approved Development Programme
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many lecturers working in further education colleges have purchased homes with assistance from funds from the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme. [100455]

  Mr. McNulty
  The home ownership schemes within the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) give priority to social tenants and those on the housing waiting list. Depending on their circumstances, lecturers working in further education
  1189W
  colleges may have benefited from ADP funding. Information is not held centrally on the number of lecturers that have benefited and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Business Bureaucracy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the forms that his Department requires private sector businesses to complete and return. [98088]

  Mr. Leslie
  The list of all such forms as recorded centrally by the office of the Deputy Prime Minister is as follows:Business Entity Record (Debtor)
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link Appeal; Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Act 1996, Schedule 6 Appeal to the Secretary of State
  CORE (Continuous survey of new RSL lettings)
  Details of Suppliers and Creditors
  ETF Project/Placement Environmental Output Information Form
  Housing and Planning Act 1986; Section 16 Tenant Empowerment Grants—Application for Development Grant
  Housing and Planning Act 1986; Section 16 Tenant Empowerment Grants—Application for Renewal of Development Grant
  Housing and Planning Act 1986; Section 16 Tenant Empowerment Grants—Application for Pre-Feasibility Grant
  Housing and Planning Act 1986; Section 16 Tenant Empowerment Grants—Application for Feasibility Grant
  Housing and Planning Act 1986; Section 16 Tenant Empowerment Grants—Quarterly Grant Claim Form; Pre-Feasibility/Feasibility and Options Study Grant
  Housing and Planning Act 1986; Section 16 Tenant Empowerment Grants—Quarterly Grant Claims for Development Grant
  Housing and Planning Act 1986; Section 16 Tenant Empowerment Grants—Application for Options Study Grant
  Neighbourhood Management (MM) Stage 2: Statement of Grant Expenditure
  P2 Return—monthly housebuilding data from the National House Building Council
  Post Office Fund for Urban Deprived Areas: Application form
  Regulatory and Statistical Return (RSR)
  Report of fire
  Survey of Mortgage Lenders (SML)

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for encouraging the use of double and triple glazed windows to improve energy conservation in(a) homes and (b) commercial buildings. [101117]

  Mr. Leslie
  Amendments to the building regulations that became effective in April 2002 included setting window energy performance standards for all buildings that in most cases can only be met by triple glazing and the better types of double glazing. They also included application to replacement windows as well as to new construction. The Energy White Paper indicates our intention of aiming to bring into effect a further major revision in 2005.

  Fire Services
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the minimum number of fire fighters recommended to attend a domestic dwelling in order to meet the requirements of(a) breathing apparatus procedures, (b) safe working systems and (c) command and central procedures; and what records does his Department hold on the extent to which these criteria are met in each Brigade area. [99631]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Current guidance recommends that a minimum of seven firefighters attend any incident requiring breathing apparatus to be worn in order to meet the requirements of breathing apparatus procedures. Guidance on incident command is set out in the Fire Service Manual, Volume 2 (Fire Service Operations: Incident Command), published by Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate. Safe working systems are determined on an individual basis by a dynamic risk assessment carried out by the incident commander, and command and control procedures vary according to the size and complexity of each incident. As incidents are assessed on an individual basis under the dynamic risk assessment process, no records are held on the number of firefighters attending different incidents.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment has been made of the additional(a) resources and (b) personnel each fire brigade would require as a result of the Save Life methodology set out in the Review of Standards Emergency Cover; and if he will make a statement. [99633]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Fire Service Emergency Cover Methodology, which was developed by the Task Group on the Fire Cover Review.

  That methodology was used by the Task Group to predict resources and personnel requirements for the brigades in the Pathfinder trials and, by extrapolation, nationally. Two alternative ways of allocating firefighting resources to cover risk were modelled; one by the Task Group and one later by the Fire Research Division of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Both sets of findings were reported on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at the end of last year1.

  However, the early research encountered a number of teething problems. These led the Task Group to reject the detailed calculations from the model it had used which is also regarded as being more indicative than precise. Further research is currently under way to resolve these issues.

  1 www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/fire/fepd/fcr/fcrhome.htm

  Housing Transfers
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how council tenants and council leaseholders will be able to receive independent advice on the implications of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 for the consultation procedures involved in housing stock transfer; [100880]
  1191W
  (2) what advice he has given to local authorities and housing associations on the implications of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 for the housing stock transfer process. [100881]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 265W.

  Light Rail Links
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government Office for the South East has to facilitate a light rail link between High Wycombe and Bourne End. [101370]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is for Buckinghamshire county council as the local transport authority to decide whether to develop proposals for a light rail line between High Wycombe and Bourne End. Officials from my Department and from the Government Office for the South East regularly provide advice to local authorities wishing to develop public transport schemes.

  Local Government Grant Settlement
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the six per cent. real terms increase in the local government grant settlement equates to in cash terms; how much has been distributed to local authorities in cash terms under the settlement; and if he will make a statement on the purposes for which the difference between the two sums will be used. [101020]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The local government finance settlement for 2003–04 distributed £43,894 million of formula grant, made up of revenue support grant, redistributed business rates, and police grant. That is £2,449 million or 5.9 per cent. more in cash terms than was distributed in 2002–03. It is for local authorities to decide how they spend this increased grant. On top of that, there will be increases in specific and special grant, bringing the overall increase over 2002–03 to £3,819 million or eight per cent. in cash terms. Some of these grants are ring-fenced to particular purposes.

  Parish Councillors
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many parish councillors have declined to sign the model code of conduct since November 2001. [101218]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Standards Board and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been directly informed of 95 resignations by parish councillors unwilling to accept the code of conduct, out of an estimated total of some 70,000 parish councillors. There is no requirement for local authority members to inform the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of resignations, for whatever reason.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what right of appeal parish councillors have if suspended from their duties by an adjudication panel. [101219]
  1192W
  Mr. Leslie
  Where a case tribunal of the adjudication panel decides that a parish councillor has failed to comply with the code of conduct, that councillor may appeal to the High Court.

  Residential Care (Funding)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account is taken in the Supporting People budget for reallocation of funding between those local authorities who choose to place residents in other local authorities for the purposes of residential care. [100541]

  Mr. McNulty
  Supporting People funding is paid to the authority that is actually contracting to provide Supporting People services in its area, irrespective of Social Services arrangements concerning 'usual' residency.

  Starter Homes Initiative
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the next round of the Starter Homes Initiative will begin. [100454]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Starter Homes Initiative runs until 2004. From 2004–05, funding for the provision of key worker housing for rent and home ownership will be integrated into the Housing Corporation's main affordable housing programme. Funding will be allocated for this in the light of advice from Regional Housing Boards. The Housing Corporation expects to invite bids for key worker housing schemes at the same time as bids for other affordable housing schemes, around September 2003.

  Sustainable Communities Plan
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether an environmental appraisal has been undertaken for the Sustainable Communities Plan. [100365]

  Mr. McNulty
  No overall Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out for "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future", as this document covers a number of areas and delivery agendas. However, Environmental Impact Assessments will be carried out for the individual elements where appropriate, at a suitable point in the delivery process.

HEALTH

  "Getting Ahead of the Curve"
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a formal assessment was made of the resource neutrality of organisational changes set out in "Getting Ahead of the Curve". [95867]

  Ms Blears
  "Getting Ahead of the Curve" stated that the proposed changes would be cost neutral in terms of public expenditure—that is, the ongoing costs of the Health Protection Agency (HPA) would be met from the funding already made available to the Department of Health—and in particular to those entities transferring to the HPA—via the spending review 2002. It was recognised in the consultation document,
  1193W
  published in June 2002, that there might be some short-term transitional costs in establishing the HPA, which would also be met from within existing resources.

  "Primary Care" Magazine
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of(a) producing and (b) distributing Primary Care magazine is; and how many copies have been circulated of each issue in the last 12 months. [100503]

  Mr. Lammy
  NHS Magazine now has two editions, each issued 10 times a year. NHS Magazine is distributed to around 27,000 senior staff in acute and secondary health care teams. Primary Care Magazine is distributed to around 31,000 staff in primary health care teams.

  Production and distribution costs can be different for different issues, depending on content, advertising revenue and whether any specific staff groups are being sent material of specific interest. Costs for each issue are reduced by income from advertising.

  The normal average costs of production and distribution are shown in table 1. The number of copies of each issue circulated in the last 12 months is shown in table 2.

  Table 1

  £

  NHS Magazine

  Primary Care Magazine

  Production

  50,386

  32,876

  Distribution

  12,500

  13,500

  Total (gross)

  62,386

  46,376

  Income from advertising

  7,900

  7,900

  Total (net)

  54,486

  38,476

  Table 2

  Month

  NHS Magazine

  Primary Care Magazine

  February 2002

  35,892

  26,166

  March 2002

  35,745

  26,080

  April 2002

  30,836

  30,919

  May 2002

  29,092

  31,387

  June 2002

  26,919

  31,921

  July 2002

  26,826

  31,926

  August 2002

  n/a

  n/a

  September 2002

  27,266

  32,364

  October 2002

  27,199

  32,319

  November2002

  27,108

  32,243

  December 2002

  27,173

  32,177

  January 2003

  n/a

  n/a

  February 2003

  134,485

  135,366

  1 Includes bulk copies distributed to workforce development confederations; this issue contained a personal development supplement.

  Age Diversity in Employment
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [99418]
  1194W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Department took steps to embed the provisions of the Government's code of practice on age diversity in employment when it integrated age into its equal opportunity policies in accordance with the performance and innovation unit's "Winning the Generation Game" report. The Department is fully committed to ensuring that older people are never unfairly discriminated against.

  A diagnostic review of progress was completed in February 2003. A number of recommendations are currently being discussed with the Department's trade unions.

  Alcohol Strategy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the responses from the consultation on the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy. [100535]

  Ms Blears
  The Cabinet Office Strategy Unit and the Department of Health carried out a joint consultation on the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy. The consultation ran from 15 October 2002 to 15 January 2003 and the results will be published shortly on both the Strategy Unit and the Department of Health websites.

  Aspartame
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will issue health warnings about the use of aspartame in food. [100720]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that they have no plans to issue health warnings about the use of aspartame in food.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent review has been undertaken of the safety of aspartame. [100766]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food published its updated opinion on aspartame on 10 December 2002. Following a review of all the data available to date, the Committee reiterated its previous advice that aspartame is safe for use. The Committee also concluded that there is no need to revise the previously established acceptable daily intake calculation for aspartame of 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to the NHS in each of the last five years of asylum seekers(a) in Greater London and (b) in England. [101251]

  Ms Blears
  National Health Service funding is allocated direct to 303 primary care trusts to secure health services for the local population, including asylum seekers. There are no separate records of services provided to asylum seekers.

  Bush Meat
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health risks posed by the illegal importation of bush meat into the UK. [100350]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA), which has responsibility for food safety matters, advises me that a public health risk assessment has not been made in respect of illegal import of bush meat into the United Kingdom. The FSA has advised local authorities, which are responsible for enforcement of imported food and food safety legislation, that all illegally imported food products, including bush meat, should be removed from the human food chain. As illegal imports, these products have evaded official controls, either in the country of origin, or at the port of entry, designed to verify compliance with food safety standards, and as such, cannot be legally valid in the UK. The FSA is also working closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to assist in the targeting of enforcement work to detect illegal imports.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has conducted into whether there have been outbreaks of diseases in the UK that can be traced back to have resulted from the illegal importation of bush meat from Africa. [100351]

  Ms Blears
  The United Kingdom public health bodies involved in the investigation of outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease have not traced any outbreaks of human disease in the UK to the illegal importation of bush meat. Studies of the routes of transmission of a range of food-borne bacteria have not shown bush meat consumption to be a vehicle of infection.

  Child Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much remuneration an NHS child care co-ordinator will receive. [100500]

  Mr. Hutton
  The remuneration of national health service child care co-ordinators is a matter for local determination. Guidance issued by the Department of Health in 2001 recommended a starting salary in line with General Whitley Council pay scales for administrative and clerical staff (Grade 6/7, Spring Point 24–32). In 2002–03, this equates to £19,592 to £27,887 per annum.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make an announcement on the actions of the Chief Medical Officer's review of clinical negligence compensation. [99613]

  Mr. Lammy
  I know that the outcome of the Chief Medical Officer's review of clinical negligence is eagerly awaited. Professor Sir Liam Donaldson has reviewed a wide range of options to tackle the complex issues involved in improving the present system for handling clinical negligence claims; these are under consideration by Ministers. We hope to publish our proposals for reform soon.

  Coronary Disease
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to PCTs about prescribing drug eluting stents for the management of coronary heart disease; and what assessment he has made of the benefits of drug eluting stents for the management of coronary heart disease. [101075]

  Ms Blears
  Primary care trusts, as local commissioners of services, decide in consultation with local acute trusts and clinicians what services and treatment to provide for their local population. Drug eluting stents were referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on 20 May 2002 for technology appraisal. Guidance on this device and its deployment is expected to be published in August this year. During this interim period, the national health service has standing guidance that it should make local decisions about whether to fund a particular intervention on the basis of the available published information.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure diabetic patients receive retinopathy screening through the national health service. [99628]

  Mr. Lammy
  A systematic retinopathy screening programme was one of two specific national targets published as part of the diabetes national service framework delivery strategy on 9 January 2003. It states that, by 2006, a minimum of 80 per cent. of people with diabetes are to be offered screening for the early detection and treatment, if needed, of diabetic retinopathy as part of a systematic programme that meets national standards, rising to 100 per cent. coverage of those at risk of retinopathy by the end of 2007.

  A copy of the diabetes national service framework delivery strategy has been placed in the Library.

  Electronic Patient Records
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts in England have introduced electronic patient records. [91849]

  Mr. Lammy
  These are Chelsea and Westminster national health service trust, Wirral hospital NHS trust, Burton hospitals NHS trust, north Hampshire NHS trust and the Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust.

  Food Procurement
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on the procurement of food that is(a) local and (b) British. [99366]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department, including its agencies, does not procure food directly but uses tendered catering services.

  The Department's policy with all procurements is to obtain value for money through competitive tendering ensuring fair and open competition. Existing procedures already allow consideration of a wide range of criteria in

  1197W
  the evaluation of tenders within the framework of the Government's value for money policies and the European Community procurement rules.

  It is the policy of our main catering contractor to endeavour to purchase from United Kingdom sources when practicable.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospital trusts which have indicated an interest in foundation status. [101376]

  Mr. Hutton
  Preliminary applications for national health service foundation trust status have been received from the following 32 NHS trusts:

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust

  Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Devon and Exeter Health Care NHS Trust

  Royal Marsden NHS Trust

  Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Trust

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospital Services NHS Trust

  Stockport NHS Trust

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust

  General Practitioners (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patient appointments were seen by general practitioners in each year since 1997 in Shropshire. [99722]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information is not collected either centrally or locally.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there are per 100,000 people in(a) England and (b) each health authority. [100083]

  Mr. Hutton
  The most recent information available on the ratio of general practitioners to population is for 2001. This is shown in the table.

  Strategic health authority name

  All practitioners 1 per 100,000 population

  England

  64.7

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  65.9

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  62.1

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  63.0

  Greater Manchester

  61.3

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  66.6

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  66.8

  South Yorkshire

  64.4

  West Yorkshire

  67.6

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  62.8

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  63.1

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  64.8

  Essex

  53.5

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  58.7

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  66.6

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  57.3

  Trent

  61.5

  North Central London

  69.4

  North East London

  60.6

  North West London

  68.7

  South East London

  62.3

  South West London

  64.5

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  72.1

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  66.0

  Kent and Medway

  59.7

  Dorset and Somerset

  76.2

  South West Peninsula

  76.7

  Surrey and Sussex

  65.1

  Thames Valley

  66.7

  1 All practitioners includes: UPEs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, GP retainers, salaried doctors (para 52 SFA) and PMS others.

  Note:

  Population rates based on 2001 resident estimates.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  ONS 2001 Population Census.

  Haemophilia
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the statement of 12 February 2003,Official Report, column 51WS, on Haemophilia (Recombined Clotting Factors), how much will be allocated to (a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire. [100956]

  Ms Blears
  Over the coming months we will be working with key stakeholders including the Haemophilia Society, clinicians, primary care trusts (PCTs) and others to put in place a strategy to implement the availability of recombinant clotting factors. The amounts to be allocated to each PCT will be determined once a strategy is agreed.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to monitor the use of the allocation of money to NHS haemophilia treatment centres in England for treating patients with genetically
  1199W
  engineered recombinant instead of products made from human blood; when the first patients will receive the new treatment; how long it will take for all patients to be offered it; how much funding will be allocated in the first year; for how many years the funding will last; and if he will make a statement. [99652]

  Ms Blears
  Haemophilia patients up to the age of 21 are already receiving recombinant clotting factors. The £88 million will begin the process of extending these products to the remaining haemophilia patients aged over 21. The extra funding has been allocated over three years—£13 million in 2003–04, £21.7 million in 2004–05 and £53.4 million in 2005–06.

  The Government's aim is that by March 2006 the vast majority of haemophilia patients should be receiving recombinant clotting factors. The Government will work with key stakeholders including the Haemophilia Society, the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation, primary care trusts and others to put in place a strategy to roll out access to these products. This will include plans to monitor the implementation of this strategy. We aim to begin the roll out as soon as possible in the next financial year.

  Care Homes (Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received concerning the shortage of nursing and residential care home places in York and North Yorkshire. [95203]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have had a number of representations regarding the situation in York and North Yorkshire.

  York has been given a Building Care Capacity Grant of £658,000 for 2002–03 while North Yorkshire has been given £754,000. The councils have largely spent this on stabilising the local care home market.

  Health Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the grants funded by his Department for health(a) protection and (b) promotion for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; how much such funding was made in the last financial year; how many awards were made; and what their administrative costs were. [99948]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department makes grants to individuals and organisations, but the information is not held centrally.

  The administration of grants is carried over by a number of different units within the Department to which a wide range of staff make a contribution. It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of these costs.

  Health Service Finance (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the deficit was of(a) the South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust, (b) the Wyre Forest Primary Care Trust, (c) the Bromsgrove and Redditch Primary Care Trust, (d) the Worcestershire Mental Health Trust, (e) the Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Trust and (f) the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust at
  1200W
  the beginning of the current financial year; and what his most recent estimate is of the deficit of each of the Trusts by the end of the financial year. [99659]

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

  Beginning year deficit £ million

  Current forecast deficit £ million

  South Worcester PCT

  0(1.3)

  5.05

  Wyre Forest PCT

  0 (0.2)

  0.85

  Redditch & Bromsgrove PCT

  0 (0.7)

  2.40

  Worcester Mental Health Trust

  0

  0.00

  Hereford & Worcester Ambulance

  0

  0.00

  Worcester Acute

  0

  7.30

  Each primary care trust (PCT) was a new organisation as of 1 April 2003 and hence had no brought forward deficit. However, the figures in parentheses represent the subsequent allocation of the deficit incurred by Worcestershire Health Authority, their predecessor organisation.

  Source:

  West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority

  Health Services (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric intensive care nurses have been employed in the NHS in each of the last six years, expressed as whole time equivalent posts. [100492]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of paediatric intensive care nurses employed in the national health service is not collected centrally. Paediatric intensive care nurses are included in the total for paediatric nurses. The number of paediatric nurses employed in the NHS is shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff employed in the paediatric area of work in England as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  Headcount

  1996

  12,590

  15,520

  1997

  12,590

  15,340

  1998

  13,080

  16,270

  1999

  13,380

  16,690

  2000

  13,640

  16,920

  2001

  14,000

  17,640

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Figures exclude agency staff.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  The number of whole-time equivalent paediatric nurses employed in the NHS has increased by 1,410, or 11 per cent., between September 1996 and 2001.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to appraise the evidence relating to treating infant medical health problems. [100556]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is the role of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to provide patients, health professionals and the public with authoritative, robust and reliable guidance on both individual health
  1201W
  technologies, including medicines, medical devices, diagnostic techniques, and procedures and the clinical management of specific conditions—some of these relating specifically to treating infant medical health problems.

  Hospital Food
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish figures for 2003 on the six key targets of the Better Hospital Food Programme. [100410]

  Mr. Lammy
  Details of the number of hospitals meeting the key targets will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the second stage of the Better Hospital Food Programme consists of. [100411]

  Mr. Lammy
  An announcement will be made at the Hospital Caterers Association Annual Conference on 24 April 2003.

  Mental Health Acute Hospital (Northampton)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the negotiations for public-private projects in regard to the Mental Health Acute Hospital in Northampton. [100802]

  Mr. Lammy
  A new facility, with a capital value of £20 million, is to be procured via the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in South Northamptonshire, including Daventry and South Northants Primary Care Trust and Northampton Primary Care Trust, to develop the provision of in-patient acute mental health care for the south of the county. 13 expressions of interest were received and evaluated to six who received the pre-invitation to negotiate (ITN).

  The pre-ITN responses were evaluated and three bidders were selected to receive the final ITN. The trust anticipates issuing the best and final offer instructions to the three remaining bidders in May 2003, based on the revised clinical model (similar bed numbers, different configuration) and provision of hard facilities management services only. This mirrors the trust's PFI re-provision for the north of the county where they are at preferred bidder stage, anticipating financial close in May-June 2003.

  Ministerial Visits
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals have been visited by his ministerial colleagues in the Department since 1 January 2002. [100416]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since 1 January 2002, Department of Health Ministers have visited 79 hospital sites. A number of these sites have been visited on more than one occasion, resulting in a total of 100 ministerial visits.

  A full list of hospitals visited has been placed in the Library.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 27 January 2003,Official
  1202W
  Report, columns 679–80, on mixed sex wards, which NHS trusts in England have mixed-sex sleeping accommodation. [95378]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to publish the names of the trusts which have or have not met the target.

  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement I made on 14 January 2003, Official Report, column 23WS.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the Government are investing in researching motor neurone disease in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [100103]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on 4 February 2003,Official Report, columns 223–24W.

  MRI Scans
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number and percentage of MRI scanners that are used for fewer than(a) five and (b) two days a week. [101206]

  Ms Blears
  Data are not collected centrally by the Department about the number of days per week that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners are operational. However, an Audit Commission report on radiology, published in July 2002, showed that almost all MRI scanners in the national health service were operated for more than eight hours per day.

  A total of 705,706 MRI investigations were carried out at NHS hospitals in 2001–02 and a breakdown of this total by NHS trust is available in the following publication:

  Source:

  "Department of Health: Imaging & Radiodiagnostics, England, Financial Year 2001–2002. KH12 return".

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mobile MRI scanners there are(a) in the NHS and (b) in the private sector. [101209]

  Ms Blears
  There is one mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner that is owned by the national health service and this facility is shared between University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust and South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust. The MRI scanner on board the mobile was provided as part of the New Opportunities Fund living with cancer initiative.

  There are a further 28 mobile MRI scanners that are available for hire by NHS hospitals on a contractual basis. These are owned by private sector and charitable organisations and are also offered for hire to the non-NHS sector.

  Myopic Degeneration
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the
  1203W
  appraisal by NICE of the treatment available for myopic degeneration which is not age-related; and if he will make a statement. [99919]

  Mr. Lammy
  There is currently no National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraisal of the treatment available for myopic degeneration. NICE is, however, carrying out an appraisal of Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) as a treatment for age related macular degeneration. It has not yet published any guidance to the National Health Service on this topic. NICE prepared its final appraisal determination on PDT and circulated it to consultees on 16 January. We understand this document has been appealed against. NICE will now consider any appeals before publishing its final guidance.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether appraisal suggestions rejected by NICE for lack of evidence are considered by the Department of Health Research Programme for further research. [100545]

  Ms Blears
  Yes.

  Information Technology
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report commissioned by the Department to assess the capacity of the supplier market in relation to the National Programme will be published. [100932]

  Ms Blears
  The analysis and report to assess the capacity of the information technology supplier market in relation to supporting the national programme for IT in the national health service was commissioned by the Department as input to the ongoing procurement process for the programme. It was not intended for publication and its use is covered by the normal rules around safeguarding the privacy of commercially confidential and sensitive information.

  We must consider legal advice, the stage at which the formal procurement process is at and the requirement to ensure access to relevant information is made available to all potential suppliers. Assuming that all due requirements are met, a summary of the key findings will be covered in a presentation to be made at the healthcare computing conference in Harrogate on 25 March 2003. The key points will also be subsequently made available on the Department's website.

  NHS Ambulance Trusts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance exists for NHS ambulance trusts regarding(a) procurement, (b) servicing and (c) lifespans of NHS ambulance vehicles. [99911]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are two types of ambulance procured by ambulance trusts: patient transport service ambulances and accident and emergency ambulances.

  Both types of vehicles can be procured either by outright purchase or by leasing, depending on the individual trust's preference.
  1204W
  For the outright purchase of patient transport service ambulances, the National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA) has a national contract in place which is due to expire on 30 June 2003. A new contract will be put in place later this year. In the meantime, PASA will help trusts by giving advice and putting in place a procurement guide. This will offer guidance on how to tender effectively for ambulances.

  For the outright purchase of accident and emergency ambulances, PASA already offers assistance to trusts in the form of a procurement guide. PASA is at tender stage with a new national accident and emergency contract and hopes to have it in place by the summer.

  Trusts tender on their own behalf for the lease of both patient transport service and accident and emergency ambulances. However, for trusts who do not have knowledge of European Union tendering, PASA offers advice and assistance on putting together all tender documentation and associated paperwork.

  Once the new patient transport service and accident and emergency ambulance contracts are in place, PASA will introduce a new national leasing contract for both types of ambulance.

  The servicing of ambulances is normally carried out by trusts themselves or by a nominated dealer. Leased vehicles can have the servicing incorporated into the lease agreement, which can be carried out by the trust or a nominated dealer. There are presently no national contracts in place for the servicing of ambulance vehicles.

  The lifespan of patient transport service and accident and emergency vehicles is determined by individual trusts and is dependant on a number of factors, including operational demands and annual mileage.

  On average, the majority of patient transport service ambulances have a lifespan of seven years. Accident and emergency ambulances have an average lifespan of five years.

  Nursing Agencies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing agencies based overseas who provide agency nurses to the NHS subscribe to the NHS's Code of Practice in recruiting overseas nurses; and which countries these agencies are based in. [100515]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are two nursing recruitment agencies that are based overseas that provide healthcare professionals to the national health service that subscribe to the code of practice for NHS employers.

  These agencies are based in Germany and the Republic of Ireland.

  Organ Donor Register
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the UK are not on the NHS organ donor register. [97861]

  Mr. Lammy
  Currently, 10.2 million people, or 17.4 per cent., of the total United Kingdom population of 58.7 million, have registered on the national health service organ donor register.

  Overseas Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions(a) his Department and (b) the Assistant Chief Nurse Officer have had about the recruitment of nurses from South Africa; what steps his Department is taking to ensure that no nurses from South Africa are actively recruited; what mechanisms he has in place with the South African Government to ensure that such a scheme is effective; and if he will make a statement. [99759]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: Actively recruiting from South Africa is against the code of practice for National Health Service employers involved in the international recruitment of healthcare professionals. Workforce development confederations are responsible for performance managing the trusts in their area to ensure compliance with the code of practice. This is being monitored through quarterly monitoring.

  Officials from the Department have met with South African officials to discuss co-operation on workforce, recruitment and other health related issues.

  The Department would investigate any alleged breach of the code of practice brought to its attention by the South African Government.

  Overview and Scrutiny Committees
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Overview and Scrutiny Committees have been set up since 1 January. [96720]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not available. The Department will be monitoring the implementation of the powers to scrutinise health services as it rolls out across England.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the parliamentary questions numbered(a) 79796, (b) 79800, (c) 79804, (d) 79805 and (e) 79806 tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. [98989]

  Mr. Lammy
  These questions were tabled towards the end of the last parliamentary Session. As the Session ended before the questions received replies, responses were sent to the hon. Member by letter, copies of which were also placed in the Library.

  Prescription Charges
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent assessment he has made of the help available to medical students for meeting NHS prescription charges; and if he will make a statement; [99918]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the support that the NHS Low Income Scheme gives to medical students; and if he will make a statement. [99923]
  1206W
  Mr. Lammy
  Young people under 16 and those under 19 who are in full time education are entitled to full help with health costs, including National Health Service prescription charges. Those aged 19 and over, including medical students, can apply for help with their health costs through the NHS low income scheme. The extent of any help is based on a comparison between the student's weekly income and requirements at the date the claim is received. We have no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Patients who need frequent prescriptions may benefit from purchasing a prescription prepayment certificate.

  Primary Care Trusts (Directors)
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of applicants for the post of non-executive director of primary care trusts have declared themselves, on the application form, to be active in the(a) Conservative Party, (b) Liberal Democrat Party and (c) Labour Party; and what percentage of applicants were successful in each case. [100252]

  Mr. Lammy
  Reliable information about applications made for non-executive posts to primary care trusts is not currently available. Application data held by the NHS Appointments Commission are currently being validated, and it is expected that they will be published in early April 2003.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons for the Board of the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital not approving a new diabetes centre. [100084]

  Mr. Lammy
  I understand that this matter, which is properly a matter for the Board of the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital National Health Service Trust, will be considered again at its next public meeting on 25 March 2003. Departmental officials have, however, brought this matter to the attention of the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority, which will consider whether any further action should be taken after the Trust has deliberated.

  Tobacco Products
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make public information on the ingredients and additives in tobacco products, their purpose and their effects gathered under the Manufacture, Presentation and Sale of Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC). [99282]

  Ms Blears
  Regulations to transpose the Directive on the Manufacture, Presentation and Sale of Tobacco Products (2001/37/EC) require manufacturers and importers of tobacco products to submit a list of ingredients contained in their products to the Secretary of State by 28 February 2003. The Department is continuing to analyse this information before making it available to the public later this year.

  Transplants
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) kidney, (b) liver, (c) heart and (d) lung transplants have taken place in each of the last 10 years. [97882]

  Solid organ transplants in the United Kingdom, 1993–2002, by organ transplanted

  Organ

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Kidney

  1,714

  1,746

  1,801

  1,716

  1,699

  1,621

  1,624

  1,709

  1,743

  1,719

  17,092

  Liver

  534

  620

  669

  639

  671

  667

  692

  671

  684

  712

  6,559

  Heart

  302

  314

  319

  279

  266

  264

  230

  204

  171

  159

  2,508

  Lung

  95

  116

  112

  116

  103

  88

  110

  98

  93

  112

  1,043

  H/L

  36

  52

  58

  53

  44

  52

  50

  33

  33

  16

  427

  Total

  2,681

  2,848

  2,959

  2,803

  2,783

  2,692

  2,706

  2,715

  2,724

  2,718

  27,629

  Notes:

  1. Includes cadaveric and living donor transplants.

  2. Multi-organ transplants are counted for each organ type, e.g. a heart, lung and kidney transplant is counted as a kidney transplant and a heart/lung transplant.

  Unnecessary Prescriptions
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the extent to which general practitioners accept financial inducements from pharmaceutical companies to prescribe unnecessary drugs to patients without their consent; and what plans he has to introduce measures to prevent this practice. [99489]

  Mr. Lammy
  Measures to prohibit the offer by pharmaceutical companies to general practitioners of financial or other inducements to prescribe medicines are contained in the Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994. Where medicines are being promoted, the Regulations prohibit the offer of any gift, pecuniary advantage or benefit in kind unless it is inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine. It is also an offence for a prescriber to solicit any prohibited inducement.

  Any complaint concerning the offer by pharmaceutical companies of an inducement to prescribe medicines is investigated by the Medicines Control Agency and as appropriate, the industry self-regulatory body, the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority. Allegations of the acceptance of an inducement may also be referred to the General Medical Council.

  Welfare Food Scheme
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the dairy industry about the proposed changes to the welfare food scheme. [101127]

  Ms Blears
  A public consultation on the proposed reform of the Welfare Food Scheme was held between October and December 2002. Dairy industry interests accounted for 15 per cent, of the total 500 written responses. The Department of Health also held five meetings with dairy industry representatives during the consultation period.

  A report on the outcome of the consultation will be published later in March 2003.
  1208W
  Mr. Lammy
  The table shows data on kidney, liver, heart and lung transplants which have taken place in each of the last 10 years.

TREASURY

  Departmental Preferred Suppliers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will allow Government Departments to place orders with preferred suppliers. [100608]

  Mr. Boateng
  Each Department is responsible for its own procurements, within the framework of the Government's procurement policy and the EC procurement rules. This policy and EC framework requires procurements to be conducted in a transparent, non-discriminatory and competitive way, with each contract awarded to the tenderer offering best value for money for the particular requirement.

  Government Procurement Policy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Government procurement policy. [100606]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's procurement policy is that all public procurement of goods, works and services is to be based on value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity. Value for money is the optimum combination of whole life cost and quality (or fitness for purpose) to meet the user's requirement.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of weighting value for money against ethical and socially constructive approaches to business in the selection of suppliers for Government Departments. [100607]

  Mr. Boateng
  Within the Government's procurement policy and the EC procurement rules, it is possible to take account of environmental, social and ethical factors where they are relevant to the subject of the contract and do not undermine value for money for the taxpayer. Relevant factors can be reflected in appropriate, non-discriminatory specifications and can feature, where appropriate, in whole life cost and quality award criteria.

  Aquaculture
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will use his power of direction under the
  1209W
  Crown Estate Act 1961 to reduce the rents paid by aquaculture industries for use of the seabed in the event of negotiations with EU partners in Brussels on 20 February 2003 failing to secure a continued protection against salmon dumping. [98507]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

  Neither my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor I have any plans to exercise the power in question.

  Aviation Industry (Pollution)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with shareholders about the most effective economic instruments for(a) limiting and (b) reducing the aviation industry's contribution to (i) climate change, (ii) local air quality and (iii) noise pollution. [101514]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor announced in the 2002 Pre-Budget Report that the Government would discuss with stakeholders the most effective economic instruments for ensuring the aviation industry is encouraged to take account of, and where appropriate reduce, its contribution to global warming, local air and noise pollution. These discussions will be taking place shortly. The Government is also publishing a background document to facilitate the discussions. The Government will set out its views in the Air Transport White Paper which it intends to publish later this year.

  Budget
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce the date of the Budget [101080]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I announced yesterday that I plan to deliver the Budget Statement on Wednesday 9 April.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2003,Official Report, column 653W, on computer misuse, what assessment he has made of the level of computer misuse within the Inland Revenue. [101140]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 27 January 2003,Official Report, columns 605–06W.

  Economic Output
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to increase output per head of population in the UK economy. [101055]

  John Healey
  The Government are committed to raising the rate of UK productivity growth over the economic cycle, improving competitiveness and narrowing the productivity gap with the US, France and Germany. The Government's approach to raising productivity is set out in "Productivity in the UK: The Evidence and the Government's Approach", which was published alongside the 2000 pre-Budget report.
  1210W
  The Government report on steps to increase productivity in every Budget and pre-Budget report. Recent key steps include the Enterprise Act 2002, the introduction of R&D tax credits, the reduction of corporation tax rates, implementation of major reforms to capital gains tax, increased investment to raise standards in education, and a comprehensive review of capital markets through the Myners, Sandler and Higgs reviews.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the output per head of population in the UK economy was in each year since 1975. [101056]

  John Healey
  Output per head of population in each year since 1975 can be found in National Statistics publication: "Economic Trends Annual Supplement, 2002 edition, table 1/", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the output per head of population in the economy of each of the G7 countries was in each year since 1997. [101057]

  John Healey
  Output per head of population for the G7 can be found in the monthly OECD publication: "Main Economic Indicators" (p277), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Government Contingent Liabilities
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's contingent liabilities. [101276]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are transparent arrangements in place for the reporting of contingent liabilities. These are in accordance with the principles underpinning the Government's fiscal framework, Contingent liabilities are already reported to Parliament, in line with the requirements of Government Accounting 2000 (Chapter 26), when they arise. They are also disclosed in Departments' resource accounts (under the requirements of FRS12) and have been drawn together in the annual Supplementary Statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment HM Treasury has made regarding reform of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme; what research he has commissioned into the effectiveness of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [101054]

  John Healey
  The Government reviewed the role of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme following consultation with stakeholders last summer. In addition, the Public Accounts Committee, the Environment, Transport and Regions Select Committee, and the National Audit Office have all published reports on the scheme. These have all concluded that evaluation of the scheme is difficult or impossible given the way in which it has been set up with no central collection of information on its outcomes. The select committee reports have criticised the effectiveness of the scheme and these comments were taken into account in the Government's decision to reform the scheme.
  1211W
  The Government have been discussing with stakeholders the best ways of addressing the most serious criticisms in the operation of the successor tax credit scheme. Any plans for reform of the successor scheme will be set out on a Budget timetable.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been contributed to environmental projects as a result of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. [101132]

  John Healey
  Contributions by landfill operators to environmental projects through the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme are published by ENTRUST in its Annual Reports, copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House.

  National Asset Register
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his policy that all buildings should be valued in the National Asset Register on the basis of (a) their existing use and (b) the maximum market value for alternative use; and if he will make a statement. [92564]

  Mr. Boateng
  Assets in the National Asset Register are valued in accordance with the Resource Accounting Manual, which follows UK accounting standards for the valuation of assets. The Accounting Standards Board's Financial Reporting Standard 15 sets out how different types of asset should be valued.

  National Insurance (Married Women)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the yield of increasing the rate of national insurance contributions payable by married women by 1 per cent. of the reduced rate. [101418]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated full-year yield from increasing the primary Class 1 contribution rate for reduced rate married women optants by one percentage point in 2003–04 is £5million. This estimate has been provided by the Government Actuary Department and is consistent with the November 2002 Pre-Budget Report.

  Public Sector Net Investment Statistics
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what methodology is used to calculate monthly public sector net investment statistics; and if he will make a statement. [101758]

  Ruth Kelly
  The methodology used is set out in note four of the Background Notes to the monthly National Statistics First Release on the Public sector finances, issued jointly by the Office for National Statistics and HM Treasury.

  Spending Review
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a sustainable development appraisal of the Spending Review 2002. [101505]

  Mr. Boateng
  Chapter 4 of the SR2002 White Paper set out how the Government had used the 1212W
  Spending Review process to promote their sustainable development objectives.

  On 24 February the Government published their annual report on sustainable development, setting out progress against 15 headline indicators. The report illustrates how the whole range of Government policies have contributed to delivering our sustainable development objectives. The report itself and relevant press releases can be found on www.sustainabledevelopment.gov.uk.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what external evaluation has been made of the advertising for(a) the Working Families' Tax Credit and (b) the Children's Tax Credit; and if he will place the conclusions in the Library. [96601]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Like all Inland Revenue advertising, the campaigns to raise awareness and understanding of the Working Families' Tax Credit and the Children's Tax Credit were all monitored to assess their effectiveness. The monitoring was carried out by independent external agencies managed by COI Communications on behalf of the Inland Revenue. Such monitoring generally takes place at key stages in the development of a campaign. The findings are used to inform the design of subsequent campaigns—or stages of the same campaign—and are not prepared for publication.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the impact of the advertising campaign for the new tax credits will be externally evaluated. [96602]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All Inland Revenue advertising campaigns are monitored at key stages in their development to assess their effectiveness in raising awareness and understanding among their target audiences. Such monitoring is carried out by an independent external agency managed by COI Communications on behalf of the Inland Revenue. The findings are used to inform the design of subsequent campaigns. The publicity campaigns to promote awareness of the Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit will be subject to a similar cycle of monitoring.

  Tax Returns
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many self assessment taxpayers have not submitted a tax return for financial year 2001–02; and if he will make a statement.[101760]

  Dawn Primarolo
  9,246,131 SA tax returns for 2001–02 were issued up to 31 October 2002 and 8,371,251 received back by the January deadline. I gave these figures in a written statement on 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 12WS. 874,880 returns therefore remained outstanding at that date.

  Windfall Tax
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amounts from the Windfall Tax spent on(a) each of the New Deal programmes for helping people into work, (b) the New Deal for Schools and (c) other items of expenditure; and if he will estimate what proportion of the Windfall Tax remains unspent. [100899]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the allocation of the Windfall Tax for each New Deal programme and other items of expenditure can be found on table 4.1 of the pre-Budget report published in November 2002. The amount of Windfall Tax allocated to the New Deal for Schools is included in Capital costs on table 4.1.

  Information on the allocation of the Windfall Tax will be updated in Budget 2003.

  Number of defendants1 proceeded against at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for offences relating to animal cruelty

  England and Wales 1997–2001

  Number of defendants

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Statute

  Defendants proceeded against

  Defendants convicted

  Defendants proceeded against

  Defendants convicted

  Defendants proceeded against

  Defendants convicted

  Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (as amended)

  1,051

  867

  1.107

  889

  1,050

  828

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec 8

  8

  8

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Protection of Animals Act, 1934

  6

  4

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Docking and Nicking of Horses Act, 1949

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Pet Animals Act, 1951

  4

  4

  7

  6

  10

  9

  Cockfighting Act, 1952

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954

  34

  30

  23

  20

  25

  21

  Animal Health Act, 1981, Secs 40–42, 46 and 49 and Orders made under Secs 8, 9, 37, 38, 39 and 43

  76

  68

  87

  73

  56

  51

  Slaughterhouses Act, 1974

  —

  —

  3

  3

  4

  4

  Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, Sec 1

  26

  21

  36

  26

  17

  12

  Animal & Animal Products (Import & Export) Regulations 1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act, 1962

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act, 1963

  2

  2

  7

  7

  8

  6

  Riding Establishments Acts, 1964 and 1970

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Slaughter of Poultry Act. 1967

  6

  3

  18

  15

  8

  7

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968, Secs 1, 2 and 6

  10

  9

  5

  5

  15

  11

  Protection of Badgers Act, 1992 (except Sec 13)

  44

  25

  19

  4

  30

  10

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec 9

  5

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec II

  2

  —

  3

  3

  4

  3

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

  7

  3

  8

  7

  —

  —

  Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991

  5

  4

  5

  4

  5

  4

  Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Diseases of Animals Act

  97

  81

  103

  80

  72

  53

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Secs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 17

  84

  63

  68

  42

  157

  118

  Total

  1.469

  1.196

  1.507

  1.191

  1,467

  1.138

  England and Wales 1997–2001

  Number of defendants

  2000

  2001

  Statute

  Defendants proceeded against

  Defendants convicted

  Defendants proceeded against

  Defendants convicted

  Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (as amended)

  1,074

  861

  975

  754

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec 8

  6

  4

  3

  3

  Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Protection of Animals Act, 1934

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Docking and Nicking of Horses Act, 1949

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Pet Animals Act, 1951

  19

  14

  11

  8

  Cockfighting Act, 1952

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954

  24

  15

  15

  11

  Animal Health Act, 1981, Secs 40–42, 46 and 49 and Orders made under Secs 8, 9, 37, 38, 39 and 43

  31

  23

  32

  23

  Slaughterhouses Act, 1974

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, Sec 1

  26

  13

  25

  19

  Animal & Animal Products (Import & Export) Regulations 1988

  4

  —

  1

  —

  Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act, 1962

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act, 1963

  II

  4

  13

  8

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many convictions there have been for animal cruelty in each of the last five years; [100352]

  (2) how many arrests there have been for animal cruelty in each of the last five years; and how many of them resulted in a prosecution. [100353]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The statistics collected centrally on arrests relate to notifiable offences only, so do not cover arrests for animal cruelty.

  Persons proceeded against and those found guilty for various offences connected with animal cruelty are shown in the table for England and Wales, 1997 to 2001.

  Statistics for 2002 will be available in the late autumn.
  1215W

  England and Wales 1997–2001

  Number of defendants

  2000

  2001

  Statute

  Defendants proceeded against

  Defendants convicted

  Defendants proceeded against

  Defendants convicted

  Riding Establishments Acts, 1964 and 1970

  3

  2

  1

  1

  Slaughter of Poultry Act, 1967

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968, Secs 1, 2 and 6

  16

  10

  17

  5

  Protection of Badgers Act, 1992 (except Sec 13)

  21

  4

  9

  5

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec 9

  —

  —

  4

  3

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec 11

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

  5

  4

  10

  4

  Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991

  3

  2

  1

  1

  Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Diseases of Animals Act

  26

  22

  201

  154

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Secs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 17

  96

  80

  67

  46

  Total

  1,368

  1,061

  1,389

  1,046

  * = Not applicable.

  1Principal offence basis.

  2Staffordshire Police were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts in 2000.

  CCTV
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has analysed on the benefits of extending CCTV to small towns and villages to help combat crime and anti-social behaviour; and if he will make a statement. [100323]

  Mr. Denham
  To help ensure maximum impact and sustainability of CCTV, a £1.5 million Home Office funded national evaluation programme is being carried out by the Scarman Centre, University of Leicester, on 17 approved CCTV Initiative schemes, including a mobile scheme in rural Kent.

  The final evaluation report will not be published until 2004 but interim reports will be available before then. The first—providing guidance for practitioners on implementation of CCTV schemes—is due for publication shortly.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what additional funding will be made available to police authorities for CCTV schemes in(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06; and if he will make a statement; [100324]

  (2) if he will make a statement on funding for local authorities for CCTV schemes in (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [100325]

  Mr. Denham
  Opportunities for funding for CCTV currently exist through the funds available to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, on which the police and local authorities are partners. Funding of £94 million is being provided for local crime and drugs spend, including capacity building, for 2003–04.

  In addition, a special £50 million Basic Command Unit (BCU) fund is being distributed to local police commanders in 2003–04 to tackle the problems that matter most in their communities. Police will be able to target the extra resources at local level problems, like anti-social behaviour and drugs, deploying CCTV where appropriate.

  Funding for 2004–05 and 2005–06 has yet to be finalised.

  Child Protection
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2003,Official Report, column 770W, on child protection, how many forces and authorities failed to submit their three year plans to him; and what action he will take against those forces and authorities who fail to comply with the 31 March submission date. [100484]

  Mr. Denham
  As the submission date of 31 March has not yet been reached, it is not possible to say how many forces and authorities have failed to submit their three-year plans. They are under a statutory duty to do so by virtue of section 92 of the Police Reform Act 2002. Any failure to submit a plan would be in breach of that statutory duty.

  Children at Risk
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times last year police officers from(a) the Metropolitan and (b) Sussex police force areas accompanied social workers to addresses of abusive and intimidating parents and guardians of children deemed at risk. [100486]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally, or by the Metropolitan and Sussex police forces.

  The standard operating procedure in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Child Protection Group is that in cases where there are criminal allegations, social workers will be accompanied by the police. There may be other instances where, although no criminal allegations have been made, a risk assessment will be conducted to determine whether the presence of the police is necessary.

  In 2002, Sussex Police received 3,783 referrals of possible child abuse. In the overwhelming majority of cases of this kind, Sussex Police carry out joint visits to the child's home with the relevant social worker. This is irrespective of whether the allegation is made against the parent/carer or whether the parent/carer is believed to be aggressive or intimidating. Given that this is the normal

  1217W
  practice, Sussex Police do not keep separate records of joint visits or quantitative information about intimidating parents.

  Community-based Sentencing
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to promote to the public the(a) use, (b) effectiveness, (c) range of initiatives and (d) suitability of community based sentencing. [98878]

  Hilary Benn
  Increasing confidence in the Criminal Justice System is the subject of a Public Service Agreement target (PSA 10). The creation of the National Probation Service and the establishment of the Youth Justice Board have provided clearer structures, substantial changes in practice based on evidence of effectiveness in reducing crime and new community-based sentences. A task force, based within the Home Office, has recently been established to further interdepartmental work towards the PSA target.

  To increase the use, effectiveness, range of disposals and suitability of community based penalties, the National Probation Service and the Youth Justice Board are working with the courts to ensure sentences are targeted appropriately. This includes ensuring that accredited programmes and recently introduced disposals, like drug treatment and testing orders and the intensive supervision and surveillance programme (ISSP), are used appropriately and their potential to reduce reoffending and protect the public fully exploited.

  Ways are also being developed to increase sentencers' awareness of new assessment techniques that act as a guide to the suitability of community sentences and accurately reflect risk factors that sentencers must take into account. The implementation of new disposals, or changes to existing sentences such as the "enhancement" of community punishment (formerly community service), will include effective communications.

  As it becomes available both the National Probation Service and Youth Justice Board regularly publish relevant information on reconviction data, practice and policy developments and performance. The National Probation Service is currently reviewing the communications capacity of the 42 local probation areas and increasing national resources for communications, including work with the media. This, and future work, will be evaluated against and informed by surveys of public and sentencer perception.

  Computer Fraud
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many laptop computers were used by(a) Ministers and special advisers and (b)officials in his Department in each year since 1995; how many were (i) lost and (ii) stolen; what their cost was; and if he will make a statement. [97500]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on the issue of laptop computers by year is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  1218W
  Three laptop computers have been provided over the last 26 months to Ministers and special advisers and none have been reported either lost or stolen.

  A further 4,721 laptop computers have been issued to officials including those within the Executive Agencies.

  In both 1995 and 1996 no laptop computers were reported lost. In 1997 one was reported lost. In 1998 four were reported lost. In 1999 two were reported lost, although one was subsequently recovered and since then no laptop computers have been reported lost.

  In terms of thefts we have reported to the House before seven laptop computers were reported stolen in 1995 with a combined value of £3,924. Nine were reported stolen in 1996 with a value of £20,300. In 1997 a further nine laptop computers were reported stolen with a value of £25,000. In 1998 a single laptop was stolen but no reliable data has been recorded regarding its value. In 1999 a number of laptops were stolen from a storeroom and were valued at £20,421. During 2000 a further 18 thefts of laptop computers were reported. The total value for these losses was £53,429 but the figure is distorted by at least one machine having no formal value recorded against it and in another case a PowerPoint Projector being included in the financial loss. From 2000 through to 13 February 2003 a further 39 further thefts were reported, with one subsequent recovery but a financial value is not available. In part this is because 897 laptop computers are now provided as a managed service from a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) partners. Where loss occurs the financial risk has been passed to the partner organisation.

  In addition to these figures 14 laptop computers have been lost from the Forensic Science Service at a cost of £1,200 each since 1995.

  Computer Hacking
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) internal hacking and (b) external hacking incidents categorised as (i) access denied, (ii) browsing, (iii) password abuse, (iv) privilege abuse, (v) data stolen/disclosed, (vi) files deleted/ damaged, (vii) fraud and (viii) other were reported by each Department contributing to the Unified Reporting and Alert Scheme. [100166]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There has been a very substantial reduction in the figures over the previous year. Analytical work is still in progress; I will reply in more detail as soon as I am able.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason he has not replied to the letter to him dated 15 January 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Huda Abdulwahed. [100685]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 28 February 2003.

  Crime
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the change in the volume of crime in(a) total and (b) by major category, on (i) a British Crime Survey basis and (ii) a police statistics basis, comparing (A) 1978–79 with 1996–97 and (B) 1996–97 with 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [99810]

  Mr. Denham
  The earliest estimates available for the British Crime Survey (BCS) are for the 1982 survey, which measured crime in 1981. Likewise, the closest BCS data to 1996–97 is from the 1998 BCS (crime in 1997). The latest available (provisional) data on trends in the numbers of incidents of crime were published in January 2003 in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 02/03, reporting on the results of BCS interviews that took place in the year ending September 2002.

  Trends in the number of BCS incidents of crime for the major crime categories, 1981 to year ending September 2002

  Interviews (in thousands)

  1981

  1997

  Year ending September 2002

  Burglary1

  749

  1,621

  982

  All vehicle thefts2

  1,751

  3,511

  2,388

  All BCS violence

  2,160

  3,664

  2,712

  All BCS crime

  11,041

  16,692

  12,251

  1Burglary includes burglary with entry and attempts.

  2All vehicle thefts includes thefts of and from vehicles and associated attempts.

  The percentage changes in the number of incidents of crime, as recorded by the BCS from 1981 to 1997, are therefore:

  Percentage increase

  Burglary

  116

  All vehicle thefts

  101

  All BCS violence

  70

  All BCS crime

  51

  Additionally, the percentage changes from crime in 1997 to the results of BCS interviews conducted in the year ending September 2002 are:

  Percentage decrease

  Burglary

  39

  All vehicle thefts

  32

  All BCS violence

  26

  All BCS crime

  27

  Police-recorded crime statistics are available for the financial years 1978–79,1996–97 and the latest data are for the year ending September 2002. The offence coverage of the British Crime Survey and recorded crime differs. For example, the BCS excludes victimless crimes, crimes against those under the age of 16 and against those living in institutions, to name a selection. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/02 provides further details on the coverage and comparability of the two measures, and the need for the use of a comparable subset of offences for any comparison of the two.
  1220W

  Trends in the number of recorded crimes of the major categories

  1978–79

  1996–97

  October 2001 to September 2002

  Burglary in a dwelling1

  253,878

  581,985

  447,100

  All vehicle thefts2

  592,279

  1,245,052

  998,400

  All violent crime

  123,276

  348,032

  909,300

  Total recorded crime

  2,514,660

  4,930,678

  5,797,100

  1Burglary here includes only burglary from a dwelling.

  2All vehicle thefts includes thefts of and from vehicles and associated attempts.

  The percentage changes in the number of recorded crimes from 1978–79 to 1996–97 are therefore as follows.

  Percentage increase

  Burglary in a dwelling

  129

  All vehicle thefts

  110

  All violent crime

  182

  Total recorded crime

  96

  The percentage changes from recorded crime in 1996–97 to the year ending September 2002 are:

  Percentage change

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Decreased 23

  All vehicle thefts

  Decreased 20

  All violent crime

  Increased 43

  Total recorded crime

  Increased 3

  The percentage changes since 1996–97 have been adjusted for the effects of the revisions in April 1998 to the way recorded crimes are counted and classified. This has had a large impact on the changes in violent crime and total recorded crime, but a negligible impact on those for burglary and vehicle crime. Recorded crime figures have also been affected by the National Crime Recording Standard. The Standard, which was introduced) formally in all forces in April 2002 and informally in other forces prior to this date, has had the effect of increasing recorded crime statistics by at least 10 per cent. in the year ending September 2002. This means that:, but for the Standard, there would have been a fall in total recorded crime between 1996–97 and the 12 months to September 2002.

  Crime Statistics (Wales)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) robberies, (b) gun-related crimes and (c) recorded crimes there were in each police force area in Wales in each year since 1997. [100247]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: The requested information is given in the table. The figures include the number of recorded crimes in which Firearms were reported to have been used.

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which would have the tendency to increase the number of offences counted. Numbers of offences before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.
  1221W
  As a result of three of the four police forces in Wales adopting the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in advance of its official introduction across England and Wales on 1 April 2002, numbers of offences recorded for 2001–02 may have been inflated.

  Recorded crime: number of offences, by police force areas in Wales

  Robbery

  Offences involving Firearms

  Total crime

  Dyfed Powys

  19971

  34

  61

  18,098

  1998–992

  42

  60

  24,588

  1999–2000

  28

  45

  23,709

  2000–01

  23

  68

  22,878

  2001–02

  26

  —

  24,003

  Gwent

  19971

  156

  129

  47,268

  1998–992

  173

  215

  58,738

  1999–2000

  216

  248

  60,132

  2000–01

  244

  197

  56,728

  2001–02

  215

  —

  46,938

  North Wales

  19971

  112

  109

  40,684

  1998–992

  127

  94

  43,848

  1999–2000

  146

  104

  44,606

  2000–01

  163

  74

  47,708

  2001–02

  194

  —

  54,116

  South Wales

  19971

  509

  295

  130,886

  1998–992

  511

  222

  134,820

  1999–2000

  519

  315

  127,040

  2000–01

  460

  275

  111,131

  2001–02

  595

  —

  116,708

  1Offences were recorded on a calendar year basis up to 1997, and thereafter on a financial year basis.

  2 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  Notes:

  1. Three of the four Wales forces adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in advance of its official introduction across England and Wales on 1 April 2002; Dyfed Powys (January 2002), North Wales (October 2001) and South Wales (January 2002). This may have increased the number of offences recorded in 2001–02.

  2. 2001–02 figures for Offences involving Firearms have not yet been published.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the desert model in appendix 8, paragraph 3 of Making Punishments Work, in the sentencing framework of the Criminal Justice Bill. [100137]

  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Justice Bill adopts the approach to sentencing advocated by John Halliday in his report "Making Punishments Work", which is based on a modified version of the "just desserts" theory of sentencing. The set of principles which guide sentencers in determining the seriousness of the offence (in chapter 1, part 1 2) incorporate the principle that the punishment should always be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, on which the "dessert" is 1222W
  based. They have been modified in one respect, again as advocated by John Halliday, so that recent and relevant previous convictions act as aggravating factors in determining sentence seriousness. The Government believes that persistent offenders must know that there will be a steady progress to custody, increasing in length, if they continually offend and fail to respond to previous sentences.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Clause 126 of the Criminal Justice Bill complies with Principle A2 of the Council of Europe's recommendation on consistency of sentencing 1992. [100138]

  Hilary Benn
  Clause 126 makes explicit the purposes of sentencing on the face of the Bill. We want to encourage sentencers to address more directly than at present the purposes of crime reduction (through reform and rehabilitation, and deterrence) and reparation, alongside the continuing key and prominent aims of public protection and punishment. These purposes are not in conflict and it will be up to sentencers to determine what weight to accord to each in a particular case. This may vary in different cases; for example a purely punitive intervention may be required, in others rehabilitation will feature more heavily.

  We do not, therefore, consider Clause 126 to be in conflict with Principle A2 of the Council of Europe recommendation. Our goal is to achieve consistency of approach in sentencing, through the consistent application of explicit principles and standards, recognising that these may result in justifiably disparate outcomes. Clause 126 which sets out the general purposes of sentencing, and those that follow which establish a set of principles to guide the sentence in determining the seriousness of an offence, will help achieve this, as will the establishment of the new Sentencing Guidelines Council which I will produce a set of consolidated guidelines for all criminal courts.

  Criminal Policy Group
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the purpose is of the Criminal Policy Group within his Department; what his estimate is of its cost for each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [99804]

  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Policy Group shared the purpose of the Home Office in building a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced and the protection and security of the public are maintained. The Group had responsibility to deliver two of the principal Home Office Aims, Aim 3 (To ensure the effective delivery of justice) and Aim 4 (To deliver effective custodial and community sentences to reduce reoffending and protect the public). Following changes in senior management arrangements in the Department on 5 February, the Group was renamed the Criminal Justice Group and its correction functions (including its responsibility for Aim 4) moved to report to the Commissioner for the Correctional Services and Permanent Secretary for Human Resources.
  1223W
  Costs for the Criminal Policy Group each year are as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97 Outturn

  77

  1997–98 Outturn

  90

  1998–99 Outturn

  93

  1999–2000 Outturn

  187

  2000–01 Outturn

  159

  2001–02 Outturn

  89

  2002–03 Estimated Outturn

  109

  2003–04 Planned

  177

  2004–05 Planned

  195

  2005–06 Planned

  217

  Notes:

  1. The outturn figures include expenditure on current (resource) and capital budgets. Figures prior to 2001–02 are taken from the Home Office Annual Report 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  2. Planned figures are for the Criminal Policy Group before recent changes and include correction functions.

  3. All figures exclude expenditure by non-departmental public bodies.

  Custody
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records are kept by the police of the time a person spends in custody(a) in England and (b) by Merseyside Police; for what period of time the police retain such records; who has access to this information; whether this information is publicly available; and within what period the police must respond to a request for details of custody. [100135]

  Mr. Denham
  The detention of people arrested for criminal offences in England and Wales is governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the PACE Codes of Practice. Merseyside Police record the detention of all persons in custody in accordance with this Act and Codes of Practice.

  Section 37(4) and Section 39(1)(b) of the Act provides that custody records must be kept on all detained persons. PACE Code C Section 2 sets out the responsibilities of the custody officer and what details must be given on the custody record, including the time of a person's arrival in custody and either the time of subsequent release or transfer to court.

  Police must retain custody records for 12 months after the detainee has been released from police custody (PACE Code of Practice C paragraph 2.4). No maximum period is specified. Merseyside police currently keep custody records for three years, but are considering extending this period to seven years.

  While a person is still in detention, a solicitor or appropriate adult may inspect the record as soon as is practicable after their arrival at the police station. (This is provided for under PACE Code of Practice C paragraphs 2.4 to 2.5). When a person leaves police detention, he himself, his legal representative or an appropriate adult may request a copy of the original custody record for up to 12 months after release provided reasonable notice is given. The information contained in the custody record is not otherwise publicly available. The police must respond to requests for details of the custody record as soon as practicable (paragraph 2.4).

  Custody Suites
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives on the health and safety requirements for custody suites. [100337]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no health and safety organisations with a specific interest in custody suites of which I am aware. The management of health and safety within police forces, including custody suites, is the responsibility of the chief officer, employing specialist advice from the Home Office, force health and safety advisers and the Health and Safety Executive as appropriate.

  In police forces where custody suite provision has been contracted out to a service provider, the organisation which owns the custody suite premises is responsible for health and safety.

  The Home Office has published a generic risk assessment relating to hazards which may arise in the custody of detainees. Generic risk assessments are available on the Home Office website.

  The Police Buildings Design Guide 1994, together with the draft 2001 Custody update, provides guidance in respect of the design and construction of custody suites to ensure the health and safety of police officers and detainees alike.

  Electronic Finger Printing
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have introduced electronic finger printing scanning; what proposals he has to encourage other forces to do so; and if he will make a statement. [99642]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently 175 electronic fingerprint scanning units (known as Livescan) deployed across 27 police forces in England and Wales.

  The Police Information Technology Organisation has established the central capability to handle Livescan data (known as NAFIS—the National Automated Fingerprint Identification Service), and set up the Framework Agreement under which forces contract for the Livescan service. However, the decision to use Livescan is an operational matter for each police force, based on its own business case.

  Due to economies of scale, the business cases for the deployment of Livescan are generally stronger in larger forces, such as the Metropolitan Police, which has 53 units.

  The use by the police of Livescan and NAFIS will also be included in an analysis of forensic performance by police forces to be undertaken by the Police Standards Unit in the Home Office.

  Firearms
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of illegally held firearms in each police force area in Wales. [100148]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 January 2003,Official Report, column 295W.

  Guide Dogs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) guide dogs for the blind and (b) hearing dogs for the deaf are employed in the UK. [100372]

  Beverley Hughes
  I understand that there are about(a) 4,800 guide dogs; and (b) 600 hearing dogs currently at work in the UK with their blind or deaf owners.

  These figures have been supplied by (a) the charity, Guide Dogs for the Blind Association; and (b) the charity, Hearing Dogs for Deaf People.

  HMP/YOI Holloway
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to reopen the Bail Office at HMP/Y01 Holloway; and if he will make a statement. [100226]

  Hilary Benn
  The Bail and Legal Aid Office at Holloway will reopen as soon as a member of staff is in place. A candidate has been selected and is due to start work at Holloway on 7 April 2003. After a period of induction and suitable training, the Bail and Legal Aid office should be fully operational from early June.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Youth Justice Board will announce its decision on funding for HMP/YOI Holloway's work with prisoners subject to detention and training orders; if he will investigate the reason for(a) previous lack of funding for this project and (b) the delay in the announcement; and if he will make a statement. [100237]

  Hilary Benn
  The Youth Justice Board (YJB), as purchaser and commissioner of juvenile secure accommodation, are currently negotiating with the Prison Service the content of the Service Level Agreement for the coming financial year. They expect to include funding for a limited number of juvenile girls to be held in Holloway this year, including those who require facilities for continuing medical treatment.

  The decision had previously been delayed because of changes last year in overall population levels and the need to review the timetable for meeting the commitment to remove 15 and 16 year old girls from Prison Service custody. The Board have announced that this will be met later this year, but Holloway will continue to hold 17 year old girls and some 15 and 16 year olds in the meantime.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Prisoners Advice and Care Trust to take over the running of the visitors' centre booking line at HMP/YOI Holloway; and if he will make a statement. [100238]

  Hilary Benn
  Holloway will have its telephone system upgraded in July 2003 and the Governor will then introduce changes to the existing arrangements. Proposals include the separation of professional and social telephone booking line arrangements whereby prison staff will continue to organise and run professional visits but a separate line for social visits will be staffed by a telephone operator. The system will be 1226W
  based in the prison and will have a line which would enable people who are finishing their visits to book the next visit before they leave the prison.

  Discussions with the Prisoners Advice and Care Trust are not yet concluded but the Governor of Holloway expects to finalise arrangements in the next month ahead of the new system being put in place later this year.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at HMP/YOI Holloway have been detained longer than necessary because home detention orders paperwork was not completed correctly, since 2001; and if he will make a statement. [100239]

  Hilary Benn
  Specific information about the number of prisoners detained longer than necessary because home detention orders paperwork has not been completed correctly is not available without disproportionate cost. However, an area-wide review of home detention order paperwork was conducted by the Female Estate Operational Office in August 2002, and the arrangements at Holloway were found to be of a high quality.

  HMPs Garth and Wymott
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of a hospital wing at(a) HMP Garth and (b) HMP Wymott. [99908]

  Hilary Benn
  There is a small in-patient healthcare facility at Garth prison to which Wymott prison has access as appropriate. There are no plans to expand this unit as a new health care facility is currently scheduled to open at neighbouring Preston prison at the end of 2004. This is to be an area-wide facility, which can be utilised by both Garth and Wymott as necessary.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the resources made available to the Metropolitan police in the current financial year. [100602]

  Mr. Denham
  The police resources made available to the Metropolitan police authority by Central Government in 2002–03 are set out in the tables.

  Revenue funding

  £million

  Home Office specific grant

  1,015.9

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Revenue Support grant

  476.9

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister National Non Domestic Rates

  183.5

  Crime Fighting Fund

  62.0

  Free travel for officers

  2.45

  London Allowance

  20.0

  Street Crime Initiative

  14.2

  DNA processing and support costs

  7.1

  Airwave Revenue

  5.0

  Counter terrorism and Community Support Officers

  46.0

  Loan charge grant

  3.6

  Total

  1,836.7

  1227W

  Capital funding

  £million

  Capital Grant and Supplementary Credit Approvals

  44.5

  Premises Improvement Fund

  1.0

  Command Control and Communications Information System

  110.0

  Airwave Capital

  40.7

  Total

  96.2

  1To date.

  Note:

  In addition, the Metropolitan police authority will raise around £361.4 million through the police precept on council tax.

  Midnight Basketball Scheme
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding his Department will be providing(a) in 2003–04 and (b) in future years to the Midnight Basketball Scheme run by the National Playing Fields Association; and if he will make a statement. [100328]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: Midnight Basketball has received funding locally in recent years from the Communities Against Drugs fund, the Children's Fund, from the Youth Justice Board and from Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. Local partnerships are currently at the point of developing their funding plans for next year and it is open to them to provide funding for Midnight Basketball from Home Office funding streams, for example for the purposes of reducing youth crime, antisocial behaviour or substance misuse. Midnight Basketball is, therefore, unlikely to receive central Home Office funding.

  In addition, from May this year, there will be a new single programme of positive activities for young people to provide year round out of school activities for eight to 19-year-olds. This will deliver activities to more young people than in previous years, providing support for those most at risk. It will be open to schemes such as Midnight Basketball to bid to provide diversionary, activities for young people as part of this programme.

  Network and Forensic Investigators
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003, ref 97541, how many(a) network and (b) forensic investigators he estimates will be trained in (i) the current year and (ii) each of the next three years.[100257]

  Mr. Denham
  Assessing the training requirements for existing and new staff in network and forensic investigation is a matter for individual chief officers. This information is not aggregated centrally.

  The National Specialist Law Enforcement Centre for National High Tech Crime Training Centre (part of Centrex) was created to ensure that police staff are equipped with the knowledge and skills that will enable them to meet the challenges set by criminals who use technology in their criminal endeavours. Its course include the development of network investigation and computer forensics skills. Forces may also receive local training, from other providers.
  1228W
  In addition to the ongoing support for high tech crime, in December 2002 the Home Office provided a one-off payment of £500,000 to the Association of Chief Police Officers to support operations to combat child abuse on the internet. This money has been used in part to provide relevant hardware and software, and also to train 86 individuals within forces in basic forensic analysis this financial year.

  Police
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the budget allocated to the North Yorkshire police force in 2003–04. [100053]

  Mr. Denham
  For 2003–04, North Yorkshire Police Authority has set a budget of £114.2 million. It has been allocated £70.4 million in police grant; revenue support grant and share of national non-domestic rates, an increase of three per cent. on the like-for-like figure for 2002–03. The balance of its budget is met from local resources.

  In addition to general grants, the Authority will receive an estimated £4.55 million in specific grants as follows:

  £million

  Crime Fighting Fund

  1.85

  Rural Policing Fund

  2.02

  Airwaves

  0.23

  Basic Command Unit Fund

  0.45

  Total

  4.55

  The authority has been allocated capital grant and supplementary credit approval to borrow £1.47 million. This is an increase of four per cent. on 2002–03.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police horses and (b) police dogs have been injured in the line of duty in the last year for which records are kept. [100371]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what protective equipment is(a) routinely worn by police horses and police dogs in their everyday work and (b) available to be used in more dangerous situations. [100373]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers have resigned voluntarily from each police force in each year since 1998–99. [100738]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) collects information annually about voluntary resignations from the police service. Figures for the years 1998–99 to 2001–02 (the latest available) are set out in the table.

  While there were 485 more resignations from the police service in 2001–02 than in 1998–99, there were 4,824 more recruits in 2001–02 than in 1998–99. By

  1229W
  31 March 2002, police service strength had reached the record number of 129,603, on track for the Government's targets of 130,000 by March 2003 and 132,500 in 2003–04.

  Force

  2001–02

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  15

  21

  16

  22

  Bedfordshire

  9

  11

  17

  25

  Cambridgeshire

  16

  11

  22

  23

  Cheshire

  8

  22

  16

  14

  City of London

  13

  8

  11

  9

  Cleveland

  13

  3

  5

  12

  Cumbria

  19

  9

  8

  11

  Derbyshire

  4

  3

  12

  5

  Devon and Cornwall

  9

  20

  18

  22

  Dorset

  15

  15

  10

  23

  Durham

  10

  12

  13

  6

  Dyfed-Powys

  2

  6

  7

  5

  Essex

  19

  31

  41

  41

  Gloucestershire

  7

  15

  15

  18

  Greater Manchester

  44

  41

  57

  90

  Gwent

  7

  9

  6

  8

  Hampshire

  23

  34

  67

  48

  Hertfordshire

  23

  35

  58

  40

  Humberside

  18

  18

  29

  15

  Kent

  48

  40

  48

  58

  Lancashire

  12

  21

  17

  40

  Leicestershire

  30

  24

  19

  39

  Lincolnshire

  12

  7

  6

  15

  Merseyside

  12

  17

  22

  21

  Metropolitan Police

  337

  365

  435

  447

  Norfolk

  13

  7

  10

  23

  North Wales

  7

  6

  9

  7

  North Yorkshire

  12

  11

  3

  11

  Northamptonshire

  23

  9

  10

  7

  Northumbria

  27

  30

  31

  37

  Nottinghamshire

  22

  12

  12

  26

  South Wales

  18

  13

  23

  28

  South Yorkshire

  27

  22

  23

  22

  Staffordshire

  22

  25

  9

  22

  Suffolk

  8

  11

  12

  19

  Surrey

  27

  26

  38

  44

  Sussex

  55

  43

  41

  63

  Thames Valley

  54

  68

  90

  69

  Warwickshire

  2

  5

  5

  15

  West Mercia

  25

  16

  17

  23

  West Midlands

  76

  86

  101

  133

  West Yorkshire

  38

  32

  42

  54

  Wiltshire

  8

  15

  18

  15

  England and Wales

  1,189

  1,235

  1,468

  1,674

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers, broken down by police force, have taken(a) medical retirement and (b) sick leave owing to traumatic brain injury in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [99653]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally. Overall the levels of medical retirement and sickness absence in the police service are decreasing reflecting work to encourage a healthy police service.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police authorities there were in England in each of the last 20 years. [99879]

  Mr. Denham
  There are 39 police areas in England and this has remained constant for the last 20 years. Each has a police authority responsible for maintaining an efficient and effective police force for that area. In the City of London, the police authority is the City Corporation. In the Metropolitan Police District, the police authority was the Secretary of State, until 3 July 1230W
  2000, when the Metropolitan Police Authority was established under the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage increase in the police precept for a Band D property in each English police authority area between 2002–03 and 2003–04; and if he will make a statement.[99901]

  Mr. Denham
  The level of precepts is determined locally by each police authority.

  Precepts must be set by 1 March each year and details should be notified to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister within seven days. Full figures for 2003–04 police authority precepts are not yet available.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) operational police officers per head of population there were in each police authority in England in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002. [99971]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: The information requested is set out in the tables.

  Police force

  Police Officers per 100,000 population1

  Operational police officers per 100,000 population2,3

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  199.4

  188.4

  Bedfordshire

  184.2

  168.0

  Cambridgeshire

  178.8

  155.4

  Cheshire

  203.8

  180.2

  Cleveland

  253.0

  230.8

  Cumbria

  213.0

  201.7

  Derbyshire

  187.1

  164.2

  Devon and Cornwall

  186.9

  176.8

  Dorset

  195.5

  185.3

  Durham

  262.8

  236.2

  Essex

  179.1

  171.4

  Gloucestershire

  208.7

  184.4

  Greater Manchester

  268.1

  248.3

  Hampshire

  193.0

  182.9

  Hertfordshire

  184.3

  170.3

  Humberside

  217.5

  200.9

  Kent

  209.1

  184.0

  Lancashire

  228.3

  210.0

  Leicestershire

  217.5

  199.7

  Lincolnshire

  191.3

  178.9

  City of London4

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  290.8

  263.4

  Metropolitan Police4

  351.1

  307.6

  Norfolk

  178.3

  159.8

  Northamptonshire

  186.3

  173.6

  Northumbria

  271.9

  247.5

  North Yorkshire

  174.6

  165.4

  Nottinghamshire

  220.3

  204.2

  South Yorkshire

  245.4

  214.0

  Staffordshire

  200.7

  172.2

  Suffolk

  167.9

  161.7

  Surrey

  191.6

  163.0

  Sussex

  188.5

  163.1

  Thames Valley

  175.0

  164.5

  Warwickshire

  182.4

  159.4

  West Mercia

  171.0

  146.2

  West Midlands

  282.6

  248.4

  West Yorkshire

  227.6

  217.1

  Wiltshire

  183.6

  169.5

  Dyfed-Powys

  219.4

  211.6

  1231W

  Police force

  Police Officers per 100,000 population1

  Operational police officers per 100,000 population2.3

  Gwent

  229.0

  213.5

  North Wales

  219.5

  204.3

  South Wales

  254.0

  226.4

  Total all forces

  234.3

  211.9

  1 Calculated using police officer strength at 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002 reported to Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate.

  2 Calculated using operational officer strength at 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002 reported to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

  3Her Majesty Inspectorate of Constabulary figures count as "operational": any member of staff, including covert staff, whose primary role is to directly deliver the overarching aims of the police service.

  4 Officers per 100,000 population for City of London and Metropolitan Police are combined.

  Police force

  Police Officers per 100,000 population1

  Operational police officers per 100,000 population2.3

  2001–02

  Avon and Somerset

  204.8

  192.5

  Bedfordshire

  188.9

  173.6

  Cambridgeshire

  186.5

  153.4

  Cheshire

  209.2

  181.5

  Cleveland

  262.5

  232.1

  Cumbria

  224.0

  211.1

  Derbyshire

  189.0

  165.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  192.4

  180.4

  Dorset

  197.8

  186.4

  Durham

  266.0

  238.1

  Essex

  180.8

  172.6

  Gloucestershire

  209.4

  189.3

  Greater Manchester

  279.1

  262.1

  Hampshire

  194.8

  183.1

  Hertfordshire

  173.7

  162.1

  Humberside

  233.6

  214.6

  Kent

  209.9

  192.5

  Lancashire

  231.1

  214.8

  Leicestershire

  223.7

  204.1

  Lincolnshire

  188.9

  175.5

  City of London4

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  293.9

  265.2

  Metropolitan Police

  365.9

  319.6

  Norfolk

  182.6

  166.0

  Northamptonshire

  194.0

  182.2

  Northumbria

  277.8

  242.9

  North Yorkshire

  188.0

  175.4

  Nottinghamshire

  225.9

  206.3

  South Yorkshire

  245.8

  216.2

  Staffordshire

  201.3

  175.2

  Suffolk

  176.9

  170.6

  Surrey

  184.3

  155.9

  Sussex

  190.0

  171.8

  Thames Valley

  176.8

  165.2

  Warwickshire

  189.9

  170.0

  West Mercia

  176.0

  155.1

  West Midlands

  293.3

  264.1

  West Yorkshire

  230.5

  220.7

  Wiltshire

  188.7

  174.0

  Dyfed-Powys

  234.5

  227.6

  Gwent

  239.2

  223.1

  North Wales

  228.1

  214.0

  South Wales

  258.7

  230.1

  Total all forces

  240.4

  217.7

  1Calculated using police officer strength at 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002 reported to Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate.

  1232W

  2Calculated using operational officer strength at 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002 reported to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

  3Her Majesty Inspectorate of Constabulary figures count as "operational": any member of staff, including covert staff, whose primary role is to directly deliver the overarching aims of the police service.

  4Officers per 100,000 population for City of London and Metropolitan Police are combined.

  Prison Service
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list construction projects in the Prison Service in each of the last 10 years that have overspent; and if he will make a statement. [100229]

  Hilary Benn
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to review the Prison Service's contract with British Telecommunications; and if he will make a statement.[100230]

  Hilary Benn
  Following a competitive tender, the Prison Service entered into a contract with BT in 1998 to develop a new telephone system for prisoners. The new system provides improved security for prisoners by removing the need for telephone cards, which had become a source of bullying and "taxing" within prisons. It also improves security for victims and witnesses because it allows individual telephone numbers to be barred to individual prisoners. The system is now installed in more than half the prisons in England and Wales, and is expected to be installed in all prisons by next summer.

  The contract was reviewed in the course of last year, and among the changes was a technical adaptation to enable foreign prisoners to make overseas calls at reduced cost. These arrangements are now being piloted in four prisons, and in the light of the conclusion of the pilots, it is hoped to extend the arrangements to all prison establishments later in the year.

  Prisoner Numbers
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the projected numbers of inmates for UK prisons are for 2005; and what the capacity of UK prisons will be by 2005.[100340]

  Hilary Benn
  The projected annual average for the prison population in England and Wales in 2005 is 87,200. The projected useable operational capacity of the estate for 2005 is 77,000. These projected figures are used for the purposes of planning the Prison Service estate. As part of the Review of Correctional Services, the Government is looking to develop a long-term strategy to manage population pressures.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for Ministers in the Scottish Executive and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Prisons
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the(a) uncrowded capacity and

  1233W
  (b) maximum capacity of prisons in England and Wales were in each year between 1995 and 2002; and if he will make a statement; [99621]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the likely (a) uncrowded capacity and (b) maximum capacity of prisons in England and Wales between 2003 and 2006; [99622]

  (3) what forecasts he has made of changes to the total (a) operational capacity and (b) population of prisons in England and Wales in the period 2003–06. [99608]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is shown in the following table. The terms "maximum capacity" and "uncrowded capacity" are understood as being the useable operational capacity and in-use certified normal accommodation (CNA) respectively. The projections given from 2003 onwards are used for planning purposes. As part of the Review of Correctional Services, the Government is looking to develop a longterm strategy to manage population pressures.

  Currently planned average in-use CAN

  Currently planned average useable operational capacity

  Forecast average population

  2006

  69,500

  77,500

  91,200

  2005

  69,000

  77,000

  87,200

  2004

  67,000

  75,000

  81,300

  2003

  66,000

  74,000

  74,100

  2002

  64,200

  71,500

  70,800

  2001

  63,500

  69,400

  66,300

  2000

  63,400

  69,000

  64,600

  1999

  62,400

  68,100

  64,800

  1998

  61,300

  67,800

  65,300

  1997

  56,300

  61,800

  61,100

  1996

  53,200

  56,500

  55,300

  1995

  50,200

  54,200

  51,000

  Notes:

  1. Population figures exclude the numbers of prisoners held in police cells during that year. The figures are based on data for the last day of each month.

  2. In-use CNA: the uncrowded capacity of the estate after adjusting for accommodation out of use.

  3. The projected population figures are taken from the Home Office statistical bulletin published on 9 December 2002. A copy of the bulletin has been placed in the Library.

  4. Usable operational capacity: the measure used for long-term estate planning purposes. The maximum number of prisoners that the estate could normally hold is up to 2,000 less than the total certified operational capacity.

  Special Constables
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were serving in Sussex police in the last six months; and what steps he is taking with the Sussex Chief Constable to increase this number. [100485]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest available figures for the strength of the Special Constabulary are for March 2002, at which time there were 306 special constables serving in Sussex police. Police numbers are now published annually and the next publication will show figures as at 31 March 2003.

  The National Policing Plan 2003–06 reaffirms our commitment to introducing measures to increase the numbers and effectiveness of the Special Constabulary. The National Specials Weekend which was held on 21–23 February provided an opportunity for Forces to
  "encourage more recruits by raising the profile of the Special Constabulary and recognising the enormous contribution made by its members to local policing".

  And the new Specials website at www.specialconstables. gov.uk has been designed so that specials and their managers can keep abreast of developments and share good practice. Guidance on good practice in all aspects of Specials' local recruitment, management and deployment is being produced by the Home Office with the Association of Chief Police Officers, and will be published on this site.

  Travellers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans to bring forward legislation for stronger enforcement powers for the police to move on unauthorised traveller camps for(a) those local authorities who have adequate site provision in their area and (b) those local authorities who have been unable to provide sites in their area; and if he will make a statement. [99495]

  Mr. Denham
  Last July, we announced proposals for new eviction powers for police to deal with unauthorised encampments. These new powers will allow police to take firm action against unauthorised encampments, without the pre-conditions found in the current legislation, where local authorities have made adequate site provision which may be temporary. We will bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows. Where local authorities have not made adequate site provision, current eviction powers will still be available.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  In line with the main Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (AFPRB) recommendations for Armed Forces' Pay announced on 7 February, the Review Body has recommended an interim pay increase of 3.2 per cent. for all regular and reserve defence medical services medical and dental officers. The Review Body also recommends an interim 3.2 per cent. increase to the Sustained Quality Payments, General Medical and General Dental Practitioner Trainer pay and to the value of Distinction Awards. The AFPRB will submit their final recommendations following the announcement of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body report later this year and further written and oral evidence from the Ministry of Defence, the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association.

  The additional cost to the Defence Budget will be some £5 million. This will be met within existing Departmental expenditure limits.

  The Review Body's interim recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2003.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Remploy Ltd
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle)
  Following the Mid-Term Quinquennial Review of Remploy Limited, the final report has been published. The report has been distributed to those people formally consulted during the process and copies have been placed in the Library. It is also available on the Jobcentre Plus website http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/Aboutus/Publication in English and Welsh. Hard copies are also available in Welsh, Braille, audio and large print*. We have also agreed an additional £17m to enable Remploy to strengthen its balance sheet and maintain its manufacturing operations. The Mid-Term Quinquennial concluded that: Remploy has been, and remains, the principal delivery agent for the Government's WORKSTEP programme;

  The current model of providing Remploy with external finance through an annual grant in aid is appropriate;

  The Company's Corporate Plan provides the best option for taking its agenda forward;

  The remit, whilst not clearly expressed, is within the parameters of the Government's Welfare to Work strategy; and
  86WS
  Remploy's Non-Departmental Public Body status remains the most appropriate vehicle for Remploy to deliver Government policy, ensuring the necessary level of security for its disabled employees and allowing Remploy the freedom and flexibility to operate successfully in a commercial environment.

  The recommendations of the Review are as follows:

  A set of financing principles should underpin determination of the annual Remploy Financing Limit, together with a clearer framework for the relationship between Remploy and Government;

  Remploy's remit needs to be clearly expressed and fully understood by all those involved in the management of Remploy both within the Company and within Government. This remit should be expressed in a new 'Main Agreement' between Remploy and Government; and

  Remploy's status as a Non-Departmental Public Body should be retained but more explicit governance arrangements need to be implemented to ensure greater clarity in the relationship between the Company and Government.

  In addition, I have, on behalf of my Right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, written to the Chairman of Remploy approving the 2002–03 Annual Performance Agreement between the Department and the Company. This agreement covers the year from 1 April 2002. It has been negotiated by the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus on behalf of my Right Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The targets are:
  the average number of progressions of disabled people will increase to 2,000, including a minimum of 1,400 to mainstream unsupported employment;

  Remploy Ltd will maintain a total unit cost target (operating deficit per disabled worker) of £10,173;
  the Company will achieve Gross Margin of £53.7m;
  the Company will achieve employee development time of 5 per cent.

  The text of the Annual Performance Agreement has been placed in the Library. Remploy published its Report and Accounts for 2001–02 in July 2002 and copies are available in the Library.
  * Copies of this publication can be obtained from Disability Support Division, Level 3 East Wing, Rockingham House, Sheffield S1 4ER.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Structural and Cohesion Funds
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  My Department is today, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Treasury and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, making proposals for a new European regional policy, and launching a public consultation on the future of the European Structural and Cohesion Funds. The consultation will run until 4 July. I have deposited copies of the consultation document in the House of Commons Library. Electronic versions are available on our Departments' websites.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Right to Buy Scheme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003, reducing the maximum discounts available under the Right to Buy scheme in 41 areas in London and the south of England, has today been laid before Parliament.
  88WS
  To coincide with the laying of the Order, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has today published a report Exploitation of the Right to Buy scheme by companies by Professor Colin Jones of Heriot-Watt University. The full text of the report is available on the ODPM website. http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/information/rtb/index.htm

  Hard copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office, Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of the House.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Royal Assent
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act,

London Development Agency Act,

Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure,

Church of England (Pensions) Measure.

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [H.L.]
11.6 a.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 7 [Trading and who transfer of landfill allowances]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5. line 34, at end insert—
"( ) their use will not result in any increase in the number of daily waste transport journeys, to any landfill or landfills, above that required in the previous year;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill makes provision for the trading and transfer of landfill allowances for the disposal of biodegradable municipal waste. At earlier stages of the Bill we had a number of discussions and serious debates around the problems created by the transport of waste. It is very often waste that is transported long distance—quite often along roads that are less than suitable for the heavy transport involved. It arrives at a disposal facility, which we hope, in part as a result of this Bill, might soon be doing rather less business.
If there is a purpose in this Bill, it is supposed to reduce waste that goes to tipping, and to reduce the transport of waste from one location to another. I have a relative who is, so to speak, in the business—so I have no business to declare, but he is a relative, which has caused me problems in the past. He says that in this modern era there is no reason any longer for a waste disposal authority to be required to transport its biodegradable waste for treatment outside its boundaries, provided that the technology is put in place.
The transport of waste is a serious issue that is offensive to many people. In the long term, the Bill can be of great benefit. However, in the short term it could cause problems, particularly if we start trading the
922
allocations. The amendment simply seeks to say that trade should not take place if it leads to increased journeys conveying waste.
We have had this debate on transport on many occasions. I think everyone agrees and accepts the principle. The difficulty has always been to find words in a suitable form to achieve a reduction in transport without disrupting the business from the day the Bill comes into force. As this is the Third Reading, it is our last attempt to try and get something about transport into the Bill. The debates in the past have been worth it. They have not been a waste of time, because, at the very least, they draw the significance of that issue to the attention of everyone who takes note of what is said in this place. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon Smith, has raised this important issue on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill. We do not want the Bill to result in more transport of waste than there is at the moment. He is right to say that he has struggled to find a satisfactory way of putting that into the Bill. With all due respect to him, I do not think that he has achieved it in this amendment. He has rightly raised the issue again, but we cannot support the present wording because we do not believe that the amendment is either practicable or enforceable.
People can wrestle with ways to reduce the transport of goods on this country's roads. But arty proposal has to apply to all transport of goods. There is no reason for simply bringing out in a bureaucratic way a remedy in respect of the transport of waste. With regret, we cannot support this amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I agree with both noble Lords that transport is an important part of waste strategy, although it also fits into the wider transport issue. However I do not think that this amendment would achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks. We have to bear in mind that it is the allowances that are traded and not the waste. In aggregate, there will be no more allowances than the finite number on a zero sum basis. In other words, the point of the trading system is to provide flexibility to overcome difficulties in meeting the target—and to allow trading between authorities which are doing better than the trend and those which, for one reason or another, are unable to meet that trend. In total, there is a finite number. Therefore, an authority that increased its number of journeys by purchasing extra allowance would be balanced by the fact that the authority trading with it had foregone that extra allowance. In aggregate, therefore, such provision cannot be necessary.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that even if such provision were desirable, it would be unenforceable. For example, if an authority were faced with a catastrophe requiring the closure of a landfill site or incinerator and had to trade to meet its target, the exact location of the alternative disposal provision

923
would determine the aggregate length of journeys. It would be difficult in such circumstances to tell the authority that it should incur an additional penalty because it was unable to use the best means of disposal. As I said, therefore, in aggregate, this provision is not necessary and would in any case be unenforceable. While I recognise the importance of transportation in this matter, I do not think that this amendment would improve the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says and I have to accept his comments. I shall perhaps return to the issue in later amendments. Nevertheless, I am unrepentant for raising the issue again today. As I said, and as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have acknowledged, the issue is significant. I accept that it is difficult, and probably exceedingly dangerous, to deal with transport matters by statute. With that in mind, I think that the time we have spent has been worth while. My father used to say that the only pleasant thing about knocking your head against the wall was that it was actually rather good when you stopped. I think it is time that I stopped. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 46, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
"(f) make provision for all trading to be carried out by direct transfer or sale between waste disposal authorities;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a short amendment to leave out paragraph (f) on page 5, line 46, which provides for the intervention of what I would call third party brokers in the business of trading waste disposal allowances. We think that such intervention is wrong. We do not think that third parties should be involved in this business at all. We would prefer to have our wording in the Bill, to make provision,
"for all trading to be carried out by direct transfer or sale between waste disposal authorities".
The "waste disposal market" is not a conventional market. It is not a market that anyone can enter. The only parties that will be allowed to trade waste disposal allowances are waste disposal authorities, and there is a limited number of those bodies. The waste disposal authorities are currently composed of most if not all of the shire counties—I am not quite sure of the position of Rutland, which is unique—the unitary authorities and the London boroughs. I agree that the number is not finite. I suppose that if the Government were to have their way over the creation of elected regional assemblies, and under those only unitary authorities, the number of waste disposal allowances could conceivably increase. However, we cannot anticipate future numbers and the consequences of legislation that is only beginning its passage through Parliament. The Bill is currently in this House, and it will in any event take a long time to implement.
Given that it is a closed market, that all local authorities know and work with each other as waste disposal authorities in a national local government organisation and that they are familiar with arrangements across boundaries and across the country, it is an odd proposition that someone will be able to create a profitable profession by trading the allowances—which, if the system works, will not be required by 2020. I think that that would be a very hazardous job for anyone to undertake.
However, we do not think that that will happen. We think that the normal meetings and lines of communication between local authorities and waste disposal authorities will very quickly enable those with surplus capacity to locate and do business over the telephone with those deficient in capacity. Our amendment says that that is what should happen—whereas the present, rather odd paragraph provides for third party intervention in the trade. The present paragraph also provides for the necessity of regulation to define how that person should behave in his trading practices. We think that the current provision is unnecessary and that Amendment No. 2 would be much better. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, in Grand Committee we asked why the Government considered that this new profession of biodegradable municipal waste allowance brokers might be necessary. We were not given satisfactory answers. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, the world of local government, certainly the world of local government waste disposal, is fairly small. Those involved in it know one another. If people have allowances to sell or to transfer, it is not clear why they cannot just telephone those whom they believe might be interested in them, or, indeed put advertisements in the appropriate publications. It is not clear why the measure in the Bill that we are discussing is required. Indeed, the regulations we are discussing may be implemented by the Government. Do the Government intend to implement these regulations? Do they think that they will be necessary? If not, are they just included in the Bill in case they might be necessary at some point in the future, or do the Government have the firm intention of implementing them to create a new and rather strange profession?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to support the previous two speakers. I do not have much to add but I have a question. When the legislation was framed, were any figures provided? For example, what profit are brokers likely to make if in fact they come into being? How much profit a year will they make? What will be the cost to local authorities? Somehow or other the cost will be placed on waste disposal authorities and eventually, one way or another, on the consumer. Presumably, figures must be available. Is it possible for the Minister to provide those figures now?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at earlier stages we debated this matter at length. It is clear that I have not quite got

925
my case across. The measure is intended to achieve what both Opposition Front Benches normally demand; that is, to give local authorities flexibility with regard to how they operate the scheme while at the same time safeguarding the public interest in relation to propriety and so on. Waste disposal authorities may well for the most part involve their own staff and trade directly with one another. Indeed, given the presence of certain noble Lords today, it would be eminently sensible for such a deal to be concluded between Essex and Lancashire. However, local authorities can choose to contract out many of their operations or to buy in professional advice. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that presumably they will do so only if that is more cost-effective than to carry out the relevant operation in-house. There is no question of additional cost here. We simply recognise that local authorities may wish to employ professional brokers in this matter rather than deal with it in-house. If they do so, we need to ensure that that is regulated to safeguard the public interest. That is all that the provision achieves.
As regards whether we shall need to implement the relevant regulations, we are committed to consult on the whole of the clause, including the paragraph we are discussing. If the overwhelming view expressed in the consultation is that waste disposal authorities cannot conceive of any circumstances in which they would involve professional brokers, the relevant regulations will not need to be triggered. If, however, professional brokers do become involved in the process, the Government will need to regulate their involvement. Therefore, we have covered that eventuality in the Bill. Some waste disposal authorities may consider that it is more cost effective and more professional to carry out the operation in-house rather than outsourcing it. We recognise that flexibility is needed in this matter. However, as I say, the public interest needs to be safeguarded in relation to the propriety of brokers'; involvement. That is the reason for the inclusion of the provision in the Bill; namely, to enable the Government to regulate that profession. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we should provide for that eventuality and will not press the amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I apologise to the House that illness prevented my attendance in Committee and at Report stage. Do I understand from the Minister that at the moment the Government are consulting on the issue? Or, is he suggesting that in future they may consult if an interest is shown? Surely, if the Government are consulting now, it seems odd to have included the relevant regulations in the Bill. But if consultation has taken place, I can understand why the relevant regulations are in the Bill. I seek clarification.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are several parts of the Bill on which consultation will be required before we bring forward regulations. That includes the
926
measure that we are discussing. We are not consulting currently but we shall do so before we implement regulations under the measure we are discussing.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hope that I may press the Minister further. I assure him that this is the last occasion on which I shall do so. Further to what the Minister said, any alterations or recommendations that emerge during consultation will be implemented in statutory instruments or orders. If that is the case, the House will not have the opportunity to debate them in the way that we are debating matters today. That is one of my big concerns.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the regulations we are discussing are no different from regulations in general, including regulations right across legislation relating to various trading schemes. If local authorities wish to outsource their activities, that process should be subject to certain standards. We have covered that eventuality in the Bill. It is sensible to do so. That does not mean that a local authority must employ a broker. It may well be that no local authority employs a broker. However, the measure in the Bill enables us to implement the relevant regulations should local authorities employ brokers and indicate in the consultation that they wish to do so. I welcome the noble Baroness back to the debate.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response although I am bound to say that it sounds to me rather like someone who is buying unnecessary insurance. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for his helpful remarks and to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his comments. Although it was suggested that a deal between Essex and Lancashire might be possible, we have a little difficulty in that we both have plenty of words but for a deal to be done someone needs I o have a deficiency. The debate has been worth while. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 7, leave out from "for" to end of line 9 and insert "the allocating authority to make available to each waste disposal authority full financial resources for it to comply with any requirement imposed on it by or under provision of the kind mentioned in paragraph (h) together with all regulations as set Out under sections 11 and 12"
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment at both Committee and Report. I am trying to make noble Lords realise how much the measure that we are discussing will cost. Since Report I have done some more work and consulted colleagues about the likely cost. The Minister mentioned Essex and Lancashire. As leader of Essex County Council, I have consulted the LGA as regards the likely costs of implementing the legislation. I am certain that my findings are also relevant to Lancashire.
At Report stage I believe that the Minister disputed my suggestion that the implementation of the legislation might cost Essex £100,000. However,

927
having carried out further work, we believe that it will cost Essex £100,000 to implement the legislation. The total cost for all the waste disposal authorities in the United Kingdom is about £15 million. I do not wish to give noble Lords a lecture on council tax, but they are all well aware of the current problems with regard to council tax levels. Local government is expected to pay for the provisions included in Bills such as the one we are discussing out of its existing funding. Given the demands imposed by education and social services, it is impossible for local government to find even the relatively small sum of £15 million.
As I say, I am the leader of Essex County Council, one of the largest local authorities in the country. We have nowhere near enough money in what is now called the FSS—our grant from government—to fund the current expenditure on waste disposal. Most of that has to be funded by Essex council taxpayers.
I do not want to give a lecture on council tax today but, when councils do not get grants from government, for every £1 million that we have to raise we have to ask the public for £4 million, because of the gearing effect. That is why council tax bills are so high this year, because of the gearing effect of extra money for which local authorities have to ask. If the Bill is going to cost £15 million, it could well cost the public £60 million in council tax with a gearing of four. That could add a considerable amount to council tax bills around the country in future.
I want noble Lords and the Government to acknowledge that the expenditure must be recognised as an additional expenditure to local government. Therefore, some way must be found to fund it, perhaps through government grant. There must be some acknowledgement of that. I am concerned that the Government do not seem to recognise that the Bill will cost local authorities money, and that that money has to be provided. I hope that the Minister will give us a reasonable response, and that the Government will take account of the subject before they finalise the legislation. I beg to move.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the amendment. My Amendment No. 21 is grouped with it and is directed towards a similar purpose, which is to get proper recognition from the Government of the increased costs imposed dribble by dribble in little ways, but which mount up for individual local authorities into quite large sums. They rarely seem to be taken account of properly when it comes to the annual national calculation of what the costs of local government truly are.
I need say no more at this stage, as the case has been well made by my noble friend. Anything I say will be repetitious, but I support the principle that he set out.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the issue has been discussed during the passage of the Bill, and it is relevant. We should welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, back to our discussions on the Bill. Her
928
colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has performed valiantly in her absence. I should also apologise for the fact that I could not be present on Report, for reasons of illness. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Livsey for standing in.
The principle behind the amendment is important. The details of the amendment do not actually match the need in the legislation, but in a sense that is not important. What is important is that we want a commitment from the Government that the extra work and costs will be funded.
It is no secret that there is a great crisis in local government at the moment, certainly in England. Now is not the time to discuss in detail the present problems of council tax levels throughout the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, nods her head in agreement, although she may not agree with me on anything else today. Why the crisis is taking place at the moment—why council tax for the new year is at the levels proposed—is a huge mystery. I do not think that anyone quite understands it.
Local government has got to a stage where it is bursting through a barrier. It cannot go on providing the services that it provides at the moment without substantially more money. The Government will say that more money is being provided, and it is. However, it is clearly not enough to do the job. It is fairly clear that one of the fundamental reasons why the crisis is happening is that the Government are putting more and more responsibilities on local government and simply not funding those extra responsibilities. That is where the Bill has relevance to the crisis.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, explained quite clearly that, unless the Government are prepared to fund adequately each and every additional responsibility that they give to local government, the crisis will get worse. Individual extra responsibilities such as that under discussion do not of themselves involve a large amount of money, but when they are added together there is a serious problem.
We cannot support the exact wording of the amendment because it is technically deficient. I hope that the noble Lord does not mind me saying so. Nevertheless, the principle that he raises is one that we have mentioned throughout our debates on the Bill, and we need a satisfactory answer from the Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, previous speakers have showed us what difficulties local authorities will be in because the Government keep piling jobs on to them but, at the same time, do not make the resources available. To a large extent, local government has been robbed of the ability to raise its own resources. In my book, we should get back to real democratic local government—independent local government—raising the resources that it needs through council tax or new sources of revenue.
In addition to legislation piled on local government by central government, we now have legislation piled on it by the European Union. Without any additional resources, it therefore has to raise even more money to

929
satisfy the legislation imposed by not only our own Government, but a government sitting in Brussels outside this country. Local government is, so to speak, in double jeopardy.
Those are much wider issues, but there is no doubt about the figures that we have seen this week of increased rates. The average rate on band D has gone over £1,000. It is becoming very burdensome on local people to have to deal with the extra services imposed on them without having the resources. The longer-term solution is to give local government freedom to raise more of its own money, but the short-term answer is for the Government to assure us that they will allocate to the local authorities sufficient funds for them to carry out the duty imposed on them by the Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, strayed somewhat wide of the amendment, although we could debate matters that they raised. The amendment proposes a very specific hypothecation. Even if I were to accept t he estimated costs given by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, we are talking about only a small part in the total area of waste management.
The issue of hypothecation raises a number of problems. Although I—
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the Minister is not speaking to the right amendment. My hypothecation amendment is the next one.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are on Amendment No. 4, arc we not?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to Amendment No. 21, which is in the next group.
In any case, I shall go back to Amendment No. 3, which deals with the totality of resources. Although I can understand local authorities always saying that they do not have enough, it is instructive that through the block EPCS grant there have been very significant increases in recent years. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will be familiar with the overall figures. There have also been benefits in this field from PFI projects, and so forth.
A substantial amount of resources are allocated by Government to the totality of waste management. It is unusual and I believe unprecedented to specify within the Bill that particular resources will be provided for as part of the block grant. We are requiring a number of administrative responsibilities to be undertaken by local authorities: the keeping of information, enforcement of regulations and so forth. The additional burden of that can be exaggerated. I believe that to some extent the estimates probably do exaggerate it. To a large extent, waste disposal authorities have to provide that information to the
930
Environment Agency in any case. Therefore, I would still argue about the degree of financial burden. Nevertheless, there is a financial implication in the Bill.
However, it would be very unusual indeed to put on the face of the Bill that that specifically should be a feature of the block grant, either through the formula or by hypothecation and not to allow that to be dealt with in the normal way between government and local authorities. The administrative costs of this part of the Bill would normally be dealt with through the block grant system and reflected in the local amount for EPCS within that block grant. To start to unravel that system would lead us into significant difficulties and would be unprecedented. It is important that adequate resources are provided, but not in the way specified in the Bill.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister again on that point. It is imperative that such resources are included in a block grant if the amendment is not accepted. As I have said, we are already spending much more on waste disposal than is provided for in the block grant. As leader of Essex County Council I know that we put in considerably more money than is allowed for by government figures, and we should like to put in more. Can the Minister assure the House that this will be included in the block grant and that he will make certain, when he talks to his colleagues, that this is part of a block grant for future local government settlements?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the calculations for the block grant, I cannot give a quantum commitment otherwise I would be committing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to future expenditure well beyond the current term of this Parliament and possibly even of this Government. I am not in a position to do that. However, clearly, in the calculation of the EPCS element of the block grant one has to take account of the additional burdens that might be implied by additional legislation. I think that is as far as I can go.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I wish he could have been more explicit about how local government will be funded to implement this legislation. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Duty not to exceed allowances]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) All monies in respect of financial penalties collected under this section shall be hypothecated directly to waste disposal authorities as directed by the allocating authority."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in tabling Amendment No. 4 I am attempting to ensure that local government get back at least some money to help to implement this legislation and to help to fund the complicated and detailed work we are trying to do in recycling waste and in waste disposal, which costs local government a lot of money. As we have said in a

931
previous debate, there is not enough money. We do not want to debate levels of council tax today but we want to find enough money for local government to carry on its work to assist the implementation of the Bill.
The amendment contains a way to do that. Money will be taken from local government in fines. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it would be fair for that money to be recycled back into local government to help with waste disposal. In Committee the Minister stated that probably it would not be right to reimburse fines. It is to be hoped that only a few local authorities will be fined. The money could then be apportioned back to local government to help with the recycling issues I have just described. That would play only a small part in helping with the cost, but it could be a useful part. The money would then be diverted directly into paying for the waste system.
The Government have announced that they will thoroughly review local government finance and consider different suggestions for ways of raising money locally. I have been involved in discussions about that. This kind of provision might be a way of giving extra money locally. Can the Minister tell the House what will happen to the money? I did not pursue the previous amendment, but I hope that the Minister at least will say that the money can be "recycled" to help recycling. I beg to move.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are now directly on the issue of hypothecation. Amendment No. 21 is grouped with this amendment and I shall therefore take as read what was said earlier by the noble Lord.
The issue of hypothecation is important and raises serious principles. Hypothecation of fines or penalties in general also raises rather wider issues than simply in relation to waste management. Nevertheless, as I indicated earlier, I have sympathy with the comments of the noble Lord. It is not the intention of the Government that the raising of fines should lead to a drain on the waste management system. So, in a sense some kind of hypothecation is implied by my saying that.
However, we are not in a position to have a mechanistic form of hypothecation, as proposed by the amendment. We are discussing how best we can ensure that those resources are not lost to the waste management system. It is important that the framework for transferring resources from penalties back into the waste management system is soundly based. Discussions on that issue are still continuing. Therefore, I am not in a position at this stage to indicate anything which could turn itself into a provision within the Bill.
It has been accepted that any increase, for example, in the landfill tax over and above the present escalator increase would be recycled back into local authorities and businesses in that area. We are currently working on the options for achieving that. In that context and in view of the options for recycling revenues raised from penalties under these provisions, that could also
932
be tackled. I am not in a position today to give the House any further commitment to that. However, noble Lords can take from what I have said that the Government have some sympathy with that.
Even if the timetable was correct or appropriate, it is not entirely clear that we would want to achieve that by an amendment to the Bill. There will be further stages of the Bill in another place, and it may be that we shall return to this matter. However, it is not at all clear that this is necessarily the best way to achieve what we both want in this respect.
I turn to Amendment No. 21. There is a slight problem in that Amendments Nos. 21 and 4 are mutually exclusive. Amendment No. 21, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would hypothecate penalties specifically to forestry. As the Minister responsible for forestry, that holds some attraction. It would be a nice idea in certain circumstances. However, to provide in the Bill for 95 per cent of the penalty income to go that way is probably going too far.
Obviously, it is preferable that any money taken out of the system is in some way put back into the system. However, I believe that both the amendments are over-specific as to how that should be done. I am not in a position to offer an alternative to the House at this stage. However, with that indication of the Government's overall intent I hope that the noble Lord does not pursue his amendment today.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. I think they were fairly helpful. I wish he had been a little more specific. However, I understand from his comments that the Government intend to find some mechanism by which this money can be kept in the system in order to help with waste disposal and recycling and not go into the Chancellor's or some other pocket. Therefore, we shall look at the matter in future stages when the Bill continues in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Scheme regulations]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 34, leave out "make provision about what amounts to" and insert "define"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. These are small and trivial amendments but they enable me to make a worthwhile point. Both amendments are designed to improve the language on the face of the Bill. Clause 11(2)(c) states:
"Regulations under subsection (1) may (in particular)—… (c) make provision about what amounts to the utilisation of landfill allowances".
The words,
"make provision about what amounts to",
are both inelegant and inefficient. They are bad use of language. The word "define fulfils the same function as those five words.
Amendment No. 7 deals with Clause 11(2)(f), which states that the regulations may in particular, "make provision requiring". One word—require—achieves exactly the same purpose and would be more efficient and elegant. In both cases I suspect that my teachers at school would have failed me in my exams if I had used such English. Our Bills, as far as possible, should be written in efficient, elegant and comprehensible English.
I have tabled further amendments. However, because time is pressing I shall probably not move them. They are directed towards the same purpose. I think the point is worth making and that these two examples are quite stark. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the face of the matter, one might be tempted to agree both with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and his teacher. However, I must point out that there are legal difficulties, in particular with the second amendment. Clause 11(2) gives examples of the types of provision, and therefore we have to refer to "provision".
Clause 10(2)(c) would permit regulations to make clear what utilisation of landfill allowances occurs. Those regulations may well need to set out a sizeable list of circumstances where an allowance will be taken to be utilised. Although that could be presented as a definition, the current reference to "provision" covers exactly that type of utilisation.
As regards the words "make provision", mentioned in Amendment No. 7, I am advised that that wording is necessary from a legal viewpoint in order to cover the subsequently referred to provisions.
The case is slightly less strong in relation to Amendment No. 5. It would be possible to exclude the words "make provision". However, given that it is always desirable to have a degree of uniformity of approach, the advice is that this change of terminology would not help. There is something to be said for uniformity when one makes lists in order to make clear that none of the examples is subsidiary to the other. I would therefore prefer to maintain that subsidiarity by retaining the current wording.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord with interest and almost amazement. Of course, I have to defer in this instance, as he does, to lawyers. I am afraid that the points made do not impress me because if we can present legislation in a more comprehensible way, we should. This language is inelegant, even if it does not entirely do precisely what I would wish it to do efficiently. None the less, the point is made. I think it is a valid one.
The Minister spoke about Clause 10. It was actually Clause 11 that these amendments occurred in, but that was merely a slip of the tongue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Disclosure of information by monitoring and allocating authorities]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 9:
934
Page 10, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) Each allocating authority must disclose, at three yearly intervals, to the Secretary of State such monitoring information as he may by regulation direct, in order to comply with Article 15 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we think that Amendment No. 9 is worth pursuing. The directive states:
"At intervals of three years Member States shall send to the Commission a report on the implementation of this Directive, paying particular attention to the national strategies to be set up in pursuance of Article 5".
That is absolutely fine. The report will be on the basis of a questionnaire. We do not know what will be in it because it has not yet been prepared by the Commission. However, we know that the Government will submit precise information on a three-yearly basis. The purpose of the amendment is to require the collection authorities to produce the relevant information and to report it on a three-year basis. Therefore, it will be readily available to the Government. They will not need to make subsequent regulations when they know what precisely is required.
It may be said that I am now buying insurance against the future. I accept that criticism, but the amendment is a genuine attempt to try to save the Government future difficulties in requiring additional information which people are not already preparing. It can easily be done because nowadays everyone keeps a mass of statistics in this area. It is a question of filing them in an appropriate file on a computer so that they are ready for triennial submission. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord is trying to be helpful. Nevertheless, I cannot accept the amendment. The Secretary of State will be required to report the UK's progress on the implementation of the landfill directive—including on Articles 5(1) and (2), which the Bill seeks to implement—at three-yearly intervals, as the noble Lord indicates. That will be in response to a questionnaire sent out by the EU Commission. In order to provide the EU with an accurate report, it will be necessary for the Secretary of State—in this case DEFRA—to obtain information from each allocating authority; namely, the devolved administrations as well as our own.
We have a good relationship with the devolved administrations. We have fully consulted with them regarding the terms of the Bill. We are all agreed about the direction in which we wish to go. In that spirit of co-operation following devolution, it is expected that each of the devolved administrations would provide the information necessary to fulfil our reporting obligations. Those obligations are covered by the memorandum of understanding and so-called concordats between the Westminster/Whitehall machine and the devolved administrations.
We have not thought it necessary to put on the face of the Bill the terms of those concordats. If we started doing so in one respect, I think there would be problems in others. Therefore, we do not think it necessary or appropriate to use the Bill to compel—as

935
the amendment would—the devolved administrations to pass information to the Secretary of State. We are content to rely on the memorandum of understanding and the concordats.
I hope that with that explanation, the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.
Noon
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hear what the Minister has said—I always listen with care—and am grateful to him for his response. In speaking to this amendment, I acknowledged a weakness in that I was attempting to anticipate the future, which is always slightly dangerous. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Registers: public access]:
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Strategy Pr England]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
Page 11, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) The measures mentioned in subsection (2) must include measures to reduce non-municipal biodegradable waste going to landfill."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 16. The Government kindly dealt in many ways with the subject in a letter. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who had the letter prepared and signed. It acknowledges, in particular, that there are remarkable success stories in some aspects of non-municipal biodegradable waste, particularly packaging. The noble Baroness noted that some 80 per cent of the 19 million tonnes of commercial and industrial biodegradable waste in England was recycled. That is a remarkable achievement worth putting on the record.
Earlier in the letter the noble Baroness caused me some confusion, which practically justified my amendment. She said that waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities picked up around 100,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste every weekday. She added that the amount of biodegradable waste in municipal solid waste varies according to waste management infrastructure and so on. It makes it sound as though we do not know what is happening in that area. It seems that there would be room for slippage. But I acknowledge that a good deal of work is happening. In the circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 11, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) Within the context of the strategy required by section 16, a duty shall be placed on a waste disposal authority and a waste collection authority within a given area to produce and publish a Joint Municipal Waste Strategy.
( ) Within the context of the Joint Municipal Waste Strategy, a waste disposal authority may exercise a power of direction to a waste collection authority to specify the type of segregated waste to be delivered in support of meeting agreed targets for the recovery and recycling of dry recyclable material and biodegradable waste."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would help to make the legislation more workable. As we discussed in Committee and on Report, the majority of the landmass of England is still covered by two-tier authorities—county councils and district councils. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, even if we introduced regional government and unitary councils, most changes would probably not happen for 15 or 20 years. Let us hope that, by then, all waste will be recycled, in which case this legislation would be obsolete. In the mean time, we must make the legislation work.
Essex County Council, of which I am the leader, has been trying to make waste management work in the county; therefore, we have also talked to other counties. One of the secrets of making waste management work in two-tier authorities is to have a joint municipal waste strategy, whereby county councils and district councils work together closely. Essex County Council and district councils are working closely to develop a waste strategy as are many counties in England, including Hampshire and, I am almost certain, Lancashire.
But some counties do not take that approach. Much of the UK is not covered by any completed strategy. The amendment would help the Government to make the legislation work by requiring councils to have a joint municipal waste strategy. Nobody could deny that it should be part of the Bill, which is a complicated piece of legislation. As we shall discuss later, some authorities could be fined for problems created by others.
I received some helpful letters from the Minister, who acknowledged that there was a problem that must be resolved. I hope that the Minister and noble Lords can accept the amendment, because it would add a great deal to the Bill. It would help all local authorities to try to make the legislation work. We all want to reach a stage where the maximum amount of waste is recycled and a minimal amount goes into landfill. Co-operation and a strategy are needed to ensure that that happens across the country, particularly in England, where there are two-tier authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. One of the reasons that I withdrew Amendment No. 8 was that it would become redundant if Amendment No. 13 were accepted. In parts of the country where waste collection authorities are separate from waste disposal authorities, it is

937
important that there is joint ownership of the waste management strategy, particularly in dealing with municipal biodegradable waste.
The Minister has tabled amendments with the same objective as this one. But Amendment No. 13 is worth serious consideration by the Government. I, too, hope that they can accept it. Success in dealing with the problems will depend on immense hard work and co-operation by everyone involved in the business. There have been occasions when two-tier authorities have not always seen their best interests as being identical. Therefore, the development of a joint municipal waste strategy between the two tiers has much to commend it. The EU directive sets out a time limit by which we must produce solutions or else the whole process will become exceedingly expensive. I hope that the Government will treat the amendment sympathetically.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, this amendment, together with others, including several by the Minister, covers an issue that provoked much debate and concern in earlier stages: the relationship between disposal authorities and collection authorities in areas of two-tier local government. I refer specifically to county council disposal authorities and district council collection authorities.
There are two aspects of the problem. First, without the co-operation and support of collection authorities in separating waste satisfactorily before delivering it for disposal, disposal authorities may be unable to meet their targets. Secondly, what will be the comeback for collection authorities if they fail to separate waste satisfactorily with the result that disposal authorities are subject to penalties under the legislation? In such cases, the disposal authorities would not be at fault. There are, therefore, two considerations: the need for co-operation between the two tiers, and the penalties imposed on district councils that fail to co-operate. The aim is to separate waste so that biodegradable municipal waste can be disposed of appropriately to reduce landfill waste as required by the European directive.
We support the objectives of the various amendments aimed at tackling the problem. We welcome, in particular, the fact that the Government have tabled amendments in response to concerns expressed previously.
Having said that, we have some problems with the amendment. We have no problem with the first paragraph, which refers to joint municipal waste strategies, and would not hesitate to support it. The question of separation and power of direction in the second paragraph is much better dealt with in the later government amendment. We therefore regret that the two paragraphs of the amendment have been moved together.
938
However, we support the general principles advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and we look forward to hearing the Government's reply. On balance, we are minded to support the amendment.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, perhaps I may add a coda to what my noble friend said. In Wales, until recently we had two tiers of local government authorities. Because of devolution, we have had single-tier authorities. From personal experience, they have operated waste disposal and collection much more effectively than was previously the case. If there is to be regional government in England—that is clearly at the mercy of the democratic will of both Houses of Parliament—the issue may well be re-examined in future. I assure the House that in our experience of unitary authorities, collection and disposal of municipal waste has been much simplified.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, all sides of the debate on the Bill recognise the issue of the relationship, in those parts of the country covered by two-tier authorities, between the county and the district, with the district having responsibility for collection. As was said on sanctions, the final group of amendments largely deals with the issue of giving the disposal authority some influence over the collection authority.
Effectively, the amendment requires a joint strategy. I have sympathy with what is proposed. We need an effective partnership between the two tiers so that disposal and collection move in the same direction to meet the landfill directive obligations. It is also true, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, that there are some excellent examples of co-operation and, as he implied without naming names, there are also some examples in which such partnerships have not developed so fruitfully. One can envisage other such examples developing under additional obligations.
However, our approach has not been that of imposing statutory responsibilities. We have encouraged preparation of joint municipal waste strategies. We have issued guidance and given encouragement to develop such strategies and guidance on how to prepare them. The guidance sets out in broad terms what such strategies should cover and the partnerships needed to develop sustainable waste management among the authorities in an area.
As I said, some authorities have clearly risen to that challenge. It is also true that the Strategy Unit document, Waste Not, Want Not, recommends that joint municipal strategies merit further consideration. The Government are indeed considering implementing that part of the report. However, we must also bear in mind that local authorities are drawing to the Government's attention the number of statutory strategies that various pieces of legislation have imposed on them and suggesting that we should be reluctant to impose more. We must consider that dimension when proposing any additional municipal strategy statutorily laid down, especially one that involves a complicated collection of authorities.
We would hope that the extension of the disposal powers of direction included in the final group of amendments headed by Amendment No. 22 would

939
encourage joint working where there may be difficulties and will provide a safeguard, but there should be a degree of voluntarism to how those joint waste management strategies are drawn up—whether the collection of authorities want formally to go down that road. We believe that that is a sensible route and we have encouraged authorities to go down it, but, for those wider reasons, we are not inclined to write it into the Bill. That does not undermine the need for partnership between the two tiers and a clear understanding of what is the strategy and what are the respective responsibilities. I hope that that argument not to write another statutory strategy into the Bill is sufficient.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. However, the Bill will be enacted and it must work. The Minister has advanced the Government's view as described in Waste Not, Want Not, and we expect further legislation in due course to implement some of its ideas. But the Bill will be enacted shortly. Without the parts of it that will make it work, it will be difficult for local government, as we have said in Committee and on Report. There needs to be a firm relationship between the collection and disposal authorities if the Bill is not to cause chaos.
Requiring a joint municipal waste strategy in the Bill would be the one thing that would make it work. I only repeat that in Essex, Hampshire and Lancashire, big authorities are putting much effort into that. They have done so voluntarily; but many places are not doing so. Enormous difficulties and disputes may be caused in implementing the Bill. The Bill would lose if it did not include the amendment, so I should like to test the opinion of the House.
12.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L

Addington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alderdice, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Crathorne, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Denham, L.

Arran, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Blaker, L.

Elles, B.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bowness, L.

Elton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Feldman, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

Burnham, L.

Fookes, B.

Buscombe, B.

Fowler, L.

Byford, B. [Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Caithness, E.

Geddes, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Geraint, L.

940

Greaves, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Greenway, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hamwee, B.

Plumb, L.

Hanham, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Hanningfield, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Reay, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Redesdale, L.

Henley, L.

Rees, L.

Higgins, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rennard, L.

Hooson, L.

Renton, L.

Howe, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Roper, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saatchi, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Luke, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McNally, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Maddock, B.

Stewartby, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Thatcher, B.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Montrose, D. [Teller]

Trumpington, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Northbrook, L.

Vivian, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Waddington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wigoder, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ahmed, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Amos, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Andrews, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gale, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Blackstone, B.

Golding, B.

Borrie, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Goudie, B.

Bragg, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Brookman, L.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Harrison, L.

Burlison, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Carter, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Chorley, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Christopher, L.

Hoyle, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Crawley,B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

David, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Davies of Coity,L.

Jones, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Desai, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dixon, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lipsey, L.

Dubs, L.

McCarthy, L.

Eatwell, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Elder, L.

941

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Slim, V.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Tenby, V.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Thornton, B.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Uddin, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Walpole, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Weatherill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Whitaker, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Whitty, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Wilkins, B.

Rooker, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sawyer, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Simon, V.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
12.27 p.m.
Clause 18 [Strategy for Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Strategy for Wales]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Strategy for Northern Ireland]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 21 ["Biodegradable waste" and "municipal waste"]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 14, line 40, after "capable" insert "within 25 years"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 deals with a small but none the less, in its way, significant matter. It would make a distinction between inert waste and biodegradable waste.
Biodegradable waste could be treated in an anaerobic digestion plant to produce useful fuels such as ethanol or even hydrogen; inert waste could not. There is a thesis that plastic bottles will break down eventually, but the timescale is so long—the suggestion is 300 years, although I do not know how that was tested—that it must be regarded as inert waste. Most building products are inert waste. With a substance such as timber, there is a problem. Timber is biodegradable, if treated appropriately. We have suggested that the distinction between types of waste should be made at 25 years.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendment. He and I have worked together on the Bill for some time, so I suspect that he will tell me that the amendment is unnecessary. However, I consider the discussion worthwhile. It will help those outside the House if such matters are clarified in Hansard. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is getting at. I shall not even argue that we could have a different definition. The Bill is dependent on the definition in the landfill directive. The amendment would change the definition of "biodegradable waste" in a way which is not the same definition as that in the landfill legislation. It is a narrower definition, although the EU definition does
942
not include plastic bottles. The noble Lord will be happy to hear that. Therefore, it would mean that all the measurements would be different from the measurements required by the landfill directive. For that reason and the potential of doing something different from that which we are required to do under the directive, I am unable to accept the amendment.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I should not want to take a particularly Euro-sceptic line, but it is a question of definitions. I must accept that. The whole genesis of the Bill relates to the European directive. I am grateful for the explanation. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 ["Landfill"]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 15, line 23, at end insert—
"( ) In this Chapter "composting" includes a requirement to maintain selected biodegradable waste at 98 degrees celsius for a minimum of two hours before storing."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 states that,
"'composting' includes a requirement to maintain selected biodegradable waste at 98 degrees celsius for a minimum of two hours before storing".
This is a significant amendment. Many people hope that the composting industry may be able to remove a significant proportion of municipal biodegradable waste from the need to go to landfill.
Be that as it may. The countryside still is recovering from the previous outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It had a direct cost to the Treasury in excess of £4 billion. It probably cost the economy at large in excess of £10 billion. Many people are still suffering as a result.
The exact cause of that foot and mouth outbreak is unknown—or at least it cannot be defined. I believe that the only certainty is that the virus must have been in imported meat or in an imported meat product. There was once a case when the foot and mouth virus succeeded in crossing the Channel. As, in this instance, there was no outbreak of foot and mouth disease on the Continent, I believe that we can rule out that possibility. Therefore, this appalling problem was imported, although we do not know in what or where or how. The dreadful reality is that we do not know how many misses we may have before we receive a hit.
As a consequence of that outbreak, the pigswill industry was closed down at an administrative stroke. The industry was banned. Although the pigswill industry was well regulated and the disease probably caused by inadequate treatment, it was deemed too dangerous to permit the industry to continue its business. As I understand it, the industry was required to treat food residues at 98 degrees celsius or above for a minimum period of two hours.
We now have the Animal Health Act. to which this House devoted a great deal of time, which has the specific intention of increasing the biosecurity of the

943
whole agricultural industry and all related trades through the food chain. The Bill tries to ensure that this dreadful disease is not visited on this country again.
If we treat municipal biodegradable waste less rigorously than was acceptable for pigswill, there are those of us who are very concerned that a coach and horses could be driven through all the work that has been done in the field of biosecurity since the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease. If I understand it correctly, the process of composting will require that the temperature goes up to only 60 degrees celsius, although for a much longer period of 48 hours. However, I understand that the foot and mouth virus is a particularly tough little beast.
There must be the consideration of what is to happen to this compost. We are not discussing simply foot and mouth disease; there are other diseases which could conceivably be spread too. The compost will go to garden centres. One can bet that it will be handled by people not wearing gloves. The compost may be used for pot plants and used in gardens. It may be spread on agricultural land if there is a sufficient quantity, if it is deemed worthwhile, and if it is found to be "beneficial to soil and soil structure". That raises the question of contact with animals, not to mention contact through human use.
We cannot afford to take any risks. Therefore, if Amendment No. 18 is not on the face of the Bill, we shall need very specific assurances. First, there should be no possibility of the foot and mouth disease vector being imported to the United Kingdom through any meat or meat products. To achieve that, it would probably be necessary to ban the importation of all meat and meat products. Therefore, that is not a practical option. But, if the Minister could give that assurance, no further assurances would be necessary.
Secondly, as an alternative, could meat or meat products be prevented from being used in biodegradable waste for composting? If that could be achieved, it might be possible to accept the Bill as it stands. Again, that would be very difficult to achieve. Thirdly, bearing in mind that the treatment to remove the virus now is less rigorous than in the past, would it be possible to guarantee that the composting process ensured the complete and total breakdown of the foot and mouth virus so that the transmission of the infection in that way could not arise?
The fourth assurance relates to the possibility of other diseases. Are the Government satisfied that all diseases that might cause problems for either human beings or animals and pets are totally removed in the composting process? Finally, could it be ensured that the compost was used in such a way that it would be impossible for the disease to spread to animals?
I am a countryman. Composting is composting. but I would not like to guarantee that there would be nothing left in the compost to attract animals such as rats. There is a real problem with this development. I have a great deal of sympathy with the composting industry over this matter. If Amendment No. 18 is
944
included in the Bill, the industry's problems will increase dramatically and its costs will also increase. However, in view of the events of the past two or three years, I believe that the proposal should be included in the Bill. I regard it as a matter of extreme significance. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, we wholeheartedly support the amendment. It is crucial that "composting" should include,
"a requirement to maintain selected biodegradable waste at 98 degrees celsius for a minimum of two hours before storing".
The main points include the impact on agricultural land where in wet weather biodegradable applications can lead to run-off from the farmland into water and water courses. We are also most concerned about the knock-on effect of the run-off into drinking-water supplies.
The second point relates to the disposal of organic waste, especially catering waste, on agricultural land. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, that includes meat and inadvertently may include bones. A great deal of meat is de-boned, but chicken bones and so forth appear in catering waste. The impact is twofold. The first is on human health. We need only mention BSE and CJD, which has occurred. Furthermore, typhoid and salmonella could be spread.
We are concerned also about the impact on animal health. I refer to scrapie and to BSE in particular. Lambs and calves, for example, can pick up salmonella from the pasture. I know of a farmer who contracted a type of salmonella typhomuirin from calves and nearly died. It is highly infectious.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, also mentioned foot and mouth, and heat treatment is a most important factor in dealing with that and with BSE. In fact, one should use higher temperatures than those stated. I had experience, albeit 40 years ago, on a family farm of bones being picked up by dogs on the farm. That resulted in an outbreak of foot and mouth disease from imported Argentinan meat. Fortunately, it was an isolated incident on one farm, but all the stock had to be destroyed as a result.
The heat treatment at high temperatures is most important. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made an important point about the banning of pigswill. I wholeheartedly agree that it should have been banned. Biosecurity in relation to animal health is also most important. The relaxation of temperatures led in one respect to the initiation of the BSE outbreak in the mid-1980s and we do not want to repeat such problems. The 98 degrees Celsius specified in the amendment is crucial and we wholeheartedly support it.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment, which my noble friend has clearly explained. It refers to,
"a requirement to maintain selected biodegradable waste at 98 degrees celsius".
Noble Lords have referred to the closure of the pigswill industry, from where we have obtained the figure. My noble friend rightly spoke about foot and mouth

945
disease and others which we in this country try to guard against and I want to add two further points. The first relates to fallen stock. I understand that from 1st April fallen stock will not be allowed to be buried on farms. What will happen to them thereafter? Even though the majority will not carry disease, it is possible that some may and will have to be disposed of in a proper manner. Furthermore, I understand that blood which accumulates at abattoirs will have to be dealt with differently. Will the Minister explain how the Government are tackling the new requirements being placed on abattoirs?
Finally, as regards catering waste, I would like to believe that the Government's contingency plan—I know they are working on it and that we have not yet received it—and their import control plan will lessen the risk of disease being spread within this country. But we know very well that it is almost impossible to stop disease entering the country. We must therefore take every precaution we can in this country to minimise the possibility and therefore hope that the Government will accept this worthwhile amendment.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I fully support the amendment and the points that have been made. An enormous danger exists—we have seen it happen in the past and may well do so again. I realise that it will he difficult for the Minister to give the assurances for which my noble friend has asked. I wonder how many noble Lords saw on television last night a programme about the illegal import of foods. It was one of the most horn tic programmes I have seen on television for a long time. The quantity of food that enters this country is considerable and appears to be increasing. The type of food that is coming in is dangerous. The packages containing foodstuffs were often full of maggots and disease. Sometimes it was not known from where they originated or even what animal they came from.
Consumers are horrified by what they see on such programmes. When producers see the importance of dealing with such food as it comes into this country, they become aware of the difficulties we have in coping with the situation. While we recognise that much of the food will go into compost, while there might appear to be discrimination, who knows what goes into compost from the household or industry?
I fully support the amendment. I hope that the Minister will take note and accept the amendment. It will deal with an enormous problem and stop the import of products which created havoc at an extremely high cost to the taxpayers of this country, as we saw during the foot and mouth outbreak.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords. I agree with the amendment. As I have not taken part in previous debates on the Bill, I am a little puzzled by the word "selected. I understand that catering waste from the home or commercial establishment needs to be treated, but do we need special regulations to decide what is to be selected? Having quickly glanced at the Bill, I see no powers to indicate how it is to be selected. Is that
946
matter covered in a current Act? If not, at a later stage of the Bill in another place regulatory powers must be included in it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the House will recognise that I would not want to put anything on to the statute book which would increase the vulnerability of our livestock industry to foot and mouth disease or our country to other diseases—human and animal—which cause such a degree of devastation. Therefore, our concern is the same as that expressed by Members on the Benches opposite.
Strong concerns have been expressed about the safety aspects of composting certain types of biodegradable waste; namely, catering waste and animal by-products. We take those concerns extremely seriously. However, it is also true that the composting of catering waste inevitably will be vital if local authorities are to achieve the recycling targets to which they will be subjected by this Bill and the Landfill Directive. However, the composting and biogas treatment of catering waste in the way being advocated in the amendment are in effect banned by the Animal By-Products Order 1999, which will come into effect in May. That order prevents the disposal of catering waste that might contain meat in a way that enables livestock or birds to access and move it, thus increasing the risk of transmission of animal diseases. The requirement will also extend to home composting. Spreading such compost on to pastureland will be banned, as was pointed out by one noble Lord. Furthermore, under the regulations, unsorted catering waste containing meat arid meat by-products will have to go through additional stages of composting. A number of wider issues were raised relating to blood and fallen stock. Some of those matters are relevant to the order, but they are not relevant to biodegradable waste.
Last year the department commissioned a risk assessment to look at the animal and public health risks posed by the composting and biogas treatment of catering waste, as well as; the effect of spreading it on the land. It concluded that, provided satisfactory controls are in place, the treatment can be carried out safely. The controls set out in the by-product regulations, which as I have said will come into force on 1st May this year, will ensure that. For those plants processing only catering waste and not animal by-products, the regulations will allow national standards to be set.
However, when setting national standards we must bear in mind their total effect. I imagine that a number of noble Lords have received a letter from the Composting Association. It indicates that if the bulk of catering waste were subjected to the kind of treatment suggested in the amendment, it could in fact have counter-productive effects on safety. Heating waste to such high temperatures can destroy the beneficial micro-organisms that should be encouraged by the composting process, thus rendering the compost ineffective. In addition, destruction of good microbes through heating can increase the susceptibility of the waste to an increase of pathogenic

947
microbes such as salmonella. It is by no means clear that the proposal would guarantee greater safety than the provisions of the by-products regulations already in place.
Turning to the national standards element, we have just completed a consultation aimed at proposing suitable UK national standards for the treatment of catering waste. The standards are in line with the recommendations of the independent risk assessment, to which industry and users have now replied.
The Government accept that the composting of kitchen and catering waste is an important method of diverting waste away from landfill, but it is vital that it is done safely and with due regard to all the dangers referred to by noble Lords. However, it is not sensible or necessary to put into the Bill a different form of control and requirement from that already covered by the animal by-products regulations. Furthermore, even leaving aside the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that the amendment is not complete in itself, its effects could be counter-productive.
Given the assurance that the Government have already considered this dimension, but believe that the animal by-products regulations already cover the points, and given the further protections through national standards currently being developed, I hope that noble Lords will not pursue the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have listened with care to the Minister. Before responding to his remarks, I wish to express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, including the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord Plumb, as well as the slightly more hesitant support offered by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who rightly raised the question of selected waste. However, having listened to what the Minister had to say in response, it is clear why the word "selected" has been introduced.
As I would expect of a government, the Minister has enunciated in the strongest terms his clear intention to try to make the system safe. However, it will depend on the risk assessment. The difficulty is that before the foot and mouth outbreak a risk assessment would have suggested that it could not happen, but it did. That is the nub of this problem.
Catering waste is not to be sent for composting and the use of such compost is to be banned on pasture. That is fine, but if it is used on adjacent arable land and cattle stray on to that land, who can say what will happen? It is not unknown for animals to stray from their areas. There are to be more rigorous forms of treatment where catering waste is involved, but when we consider biodegradable municipal waste, comprising the garbage that we heave into our own dustbins, it obviously includes food residues and residual animal waste products. They may be satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily treated; they may be cooked or uncooked, such as in the disposal of rare steak. We must consider the dangers.
948
I hear what the Minister says about regulations which are to follow after the completion of the risk assessment and I take his point that heating compost may have certain disadvantages with regard to the final product. I am well aware of the work being done in this area.
If the Bill had reached the end of its parliamentary process today, I would be inclined to take the Minister's words a little more seriously, but today's procedure is not the end of the process. The Bill has yet to be sent to the Commons and thus there will be plenty of opportunities to consider the matter further. At the moment I am not satisfied with the Government's response. I asked for specific assurances, but they have not been given. To be honest, I did not think that the Minister would be able to give those assurances, although I thought that it would be worth asking for them. In the circumstances, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
12.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Greaves, L.

Alderdice, L.

Hamwee, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hanham, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hanningfield, L.

Arran, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blaker, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Higgins, L.

Bowness, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Buscombe, B.

Hooson, L.

Byford, B. [Teller]

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carrington, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Colwyn, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Crathorne, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Lucas, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Luke, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lyell, L.

Denham, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

McNally, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Maddock, B.

Elles, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Marlesford, L.

Elton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Feldman, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Ferrers, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Fookes, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Fowler, L.

Montrose, D. [Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Geddes, L.

Newby, L.

Geraint, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Northbrook, L.

949

Norton of Louth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Seccombe, B.

Palmer, L.

Selborne, E.

Patten, L.

Selsdon, L

Pearson of Rannoch. L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Plumb, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Reay, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Redesdale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Thatcher, B.

Rennard, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Renton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Trumpington, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Vivian, L.

Roper, L.

Waddington, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Wakeham, L.

Saatchi, L.

Walpole, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wigoder, L.

Sandberg, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ahmed, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Amos, B.

Harrison, L.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Billingham, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Boothroyd, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Borrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Bragg, L.

Jones, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brookman, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Nicol, B.

Crawley, B.

Parekh, L.

David, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Desai, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dixon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Elder, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sawyer, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Slim, V.

Gale, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gilbert, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Golding, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Tenby, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Thornton, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Grenfell, L.

950

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitaker, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Whitty, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Wilkins, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
1.8 p.m.
Clause 25 [Activities to which Chapter 1 does not apply]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION OF THE LANDFILL TAX ESCALATOR

(1) Commencing in the financial year 2006–07, the whole of the portion of landfill tax above £15 per tonne in each year will be disbursed to the allocating authority for each area.

(2) The allocating authority for each area will apply the disbursement received under subsection (1) to—

(a) research into ways of reducing the amount of all waste going to landfill,

(b) capital projects designed to treat biodegradable municipal waste to prevent it from going to landfill,

(c) capital projects designed to treat biodegradable waste to reduce the amount of all waste going to landfill, and

(d) schemes designed to benefit the local community where waste treatment projects are sited.

(3) The allocating authority for each area shall ensure that capital projects for treating biodegradable municipal waste are—

(a) sited within the boundaries of the location controlled by each waste disposal authority that is applying for funding, and

(b) supplied with waste mainly collected within the boundaries of the locality controlled by the relevant waste disposal authority.

(4) The allocating authority for each area shall by regulations ensure that private waste disposal companies shall also be entitled to use the facilities resulting from subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the application of the landfill tax escalator. It requires that after 2006–07 the moneys from the landfill tax escalator, which are already committed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be dedicated to the research, investment and so on required by the waste disposal industry if we are to meet national targets.
It has been estimated that an annual expenditure of £1.5 billion for the next 10 years will probably be required if we are to meet the directive in the way intended. At the moment the Government are investing in the order of £7 million or £8 million per year in this field. There is, of course, a good deal of private money and investment going in and the total turnover of the waste industry amounts to a large sum of money. But we are talking about new investment and the money has to come from somewhere. If the costs of disposal are being deliberately increased in order to prevent waste going to landfill., there is merit in the revenue generated being reinvested in the new process plant required to meet national targets.
This is a fairly simple principle. It is one which every Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore every government Minister, is bound to resist. But it is a case worth arguing. We believe that this should be done. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, as I understand it, the amendment seeks to hypothecate all the revenue from landfill tax over £15 a tonne to the specific purposes set out in the amendment. This is an entirely new principle as regards landfill tax. At present, 20 per cent of landfill tax goes to worthy schemes; to recycling, and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, wants to take the whole of the increase in landfill tax—the landfill tax escalator—and apply it to specific purposes in relation to the Bill and specifically in relation to municipal biodegradable waste.
This interesting idea is worthy of considerable debate. Third Reading is not technically the best time to hold such a debate. It would have been interesting to explore in Committee the exact intention behind the amendment, and why these specific purposes and not others are set down. We cannot do that at this stage. Therefore, we must take the amendment or leave it.
Over and above capital projects in relation to treating biodegradable waste, the money would be applied to,
"schemes designed to benefit the local community where waste treatment projects are sited".
I am not sure how such a local community would be defined. The question arises: why that local community, and not local communities which have landfill sites, which in many cases are likely to present more difficulty in terms of the effect on the community? The terms of the amendment are very specific. It is difficult to see exactly why it is drafted as it is.
In addition, the amendment seeks to impose conditions relating to capital projects designed to treat biodegradable municipal waste, stating that they have to be,
"sited within the boundaries of the location controlled by each waste disposal authority".
I am not sure what that means; I suspect that it is a misprint for "locality". The amendment also lays down the specific condition that the capital projects funded by this money should only be within,
"the relevant waste disposal authority".
This may be a county view. It may have arisen in counties with lots of land which get upset when much smaller unitary authorities want to locate waste disposal facilities of various kinds in those areas. I suspect that that is how this situation has arisen. It seems to me totally impractical. It seems that joint schemes might be prevented from happening by the precise wording of the amendment. Viewed from Lancashire, which might in future be broken up into unitary authorities, the county will not start locating individual facilities such as this within each of the
952
likely unitary authorities; it will have a certain number of facilities in strategic positions in the county. The unitary authorities they appear in will be arbitrary.
For those reasons, and because we do not have an opportunity to probe the amendment properly and discover its meaning, I shall not be able to advise my colleagues to support it.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment. I am disappointed that we did not raise the subject earlier. That said, and accepting the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that the wording is not perfect, I hope that the Minister will give us some indication that the Government will consider the proposal.
We know very well that the Government do not like hypothecation—all governments are fearful of it. The amendment is designed so that the money that will go to good causes is not taken away. It is certainly not my intention that it should be taken away. The new money raised will be used for the benefit of the community in finding out different ways in which the amount of waste going to landfill can be reduced.
Having accepted that the amendment is slightly wordy and not perfect, if the Minister will give an indication that between now and the Bill's appearance in another place the Government will give the matter additional thought rather than simply turning the amendment down flat, I for one shall be happier.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, there are defects in the amendment. However, the proposal could be debated as the Bill moves through its stages in another place.
I am not at all sure that I am against hypothecation. It seems to me that it may be a very good discipline for Chancellors of the Exchequer and that money raised from the taxpayer on the pretext of doing one thing should not be used to do something else.
In past weeks we have had an example of hypothecation which everyone seems to think is working very well. I refer to the London congestion charge. The fines from the charge, as I understand it, are to go towards improving public transport. Who in this Chamber is opposed to that? Hands up, please, those noble Lords who are opposed to the idea of the fines going towards better transport in London. The idea of hypothecation is possibly gaining a great deal of support. We should not, therefore, reject the amendment on that basis. If it is put to the vote, just to establish that principle, I shall vote for it. Then we shall see what happens. At least it will make the Government think.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have thought about this proposal and I understand what is behind it. I shall not engage in any knee-jerk ideological defence of the position against hypothecation. Increasing landfill tax beyond its current escalator will be necessary in order to deliver

953
sustainable waste management and it is intended to provide businesses and local authorities with the incentive to use and develop alternatives to landfill. So the issue of' recycling this revenue immediately arises.
However, it is not normal for legislation—and not conventional for House of Lords legislation in particular—to pre-empt what might be normal Budget business. We announced in the Pre-Budget Report that revenue from businesses which results from increases in the landfill escalator will be recycled back to businesses. We also said that the increases will be revenue neutral as a whole-in other words, the increase in revenue from the local authorities will also be recycled back to local authorities.
The revenue will, therefore, not be lost to local authorities; it will go back into the system to bring further benefits to local government. That is admittedly in general terms, and does not have the prescriptive nature of this amendment. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, indicated, the restrictions and ambiguities of the prescriptions are in any case not helpful to the noble Lord's cause.
We are discussing ministerially the mechanism for recycling the revenue from municipal waste under a group chaired by a Treasury Minister. I am not, of course, in a position to anticipate the forthcoming Budget or any subsequent Budget, but I have no doubt that there will be announcements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in due course.
In the meantime, it is not an appropriate use of this legislation to pre-empt such decisions. Therefore, while displaying as a great sympathy as I am in a position to do with the objectives of the amendment, I must resist it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathy, if nothing else. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is also sympathetic but says that the wording might be too restrictive in the way these funds could be used. I accept some of his criticism, but some of the restrictions were thought through. For instance, most existing landfill sites already have fairly heavy conditions imposed on them to make them more environmentally attractive. Not the least of the big problems in dealing with waste is overcoming local nimbyism. That was why we felt we should put these funds towards the benefit of communities where new facilities are provided.
One would hope that part of the result of these developments over the next 18 years would be that we did not need to open any more landfill sites. Were that to happen, it would be extremely beneficial.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for his support, particularly on hypothecation. He used the London congestion charge as an argument in favour of it, but that is not necessarily proven yet. We do not know how the congestion charge will work in the long term and until we do, I would not want to take it as an example of anything, although it certainly seems to have had a remarkable effect.
954
My noble friend Lady Byford asked the Government to consider the ideas behind the amendment, even if they do not accept it. I am grateful for that thought because the Minister gave some hint in his response that the Government are doing that In the circumstances, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Penalties under Chapter 1: general]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 22:
Before Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
"DIRECTIONS TO WASTE COLLECTION AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND
(1) Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (waste on land) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 48 (duties of waste collection authorities as respects collected waste), after subsection (1) (collection authority to deliver collected waste to places directed by disposal authority) there is inserted—
11 (1A) A waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority must discharge its duty under subsection (1) above in accordance with any directions about separation of waste given by the waste disposal authority for its area."
(3) In section 51 (functions of waste disposal authorities), after subsection (4) there is inserted—
"(4A) A waste disposal authority in England which is not also a waste collection authority may in directions under subsection (4)(a) above include requirements about separation that relate to waste as delivered, but may do so only if it considers it necessary for assisting it to comply with any obligation imposed on it by or under any enactment.""
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall also speak to the other amendments in my name in this group. We have discussed the need for a good relationship between the waste disposal authorities and the waste collection authorities in areas with two-tier authorities. We all accept that there is a need for that to be clearer.
The amendment would give a power to allow counties to direct districts as to the form in which waste should be delivered. That is in line with the Waste Strategy 2000. The amendment would amend Sections 48 and 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to allow for that direction, which is already there for a parallel purpose. The amendment would extend a county's existing powers to give directions to a district by providing that such directions may include requirements about the separation of waste as delivered to the county.
The amendment to Section 48 will place the district under a duty to comply with any directions about the separation of waste. The amendment provides that a county can use that power only if it considers it necessary for assisting it to comply with any obligation imposed on it by or under any enactment. That will include enactments under this Bill, other Bills and the Local Government Act 1999.
The new clause would come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State. We therefore need to consider how the timing would fit in with some of the other measures designed to improve co-operation between the county and district in two-tier areas. We see partnership between the two levels as very important in delivering this. The ability to give a direction helps in areas where relations between the two tiers are not always as amicable as we would like and where a joint approach is desirable.
It may he helpful to the House if I mention the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which deals with passing on penalties. I understand why it has been tabled, but we did not find penalties being passed between counties and districts an attractive prospect. We want to ensure that there is partnership; the question of direction clearly gives some authority to the county but arguing about sanctions and money is unlikely to develop the constructive partnership that we wish to see. We therefore want to leave it clear that the county—the waste disposal authority—is responsible for meeting targets. We do not want to confuse the issue by introducing the ability to pass on any sanction or penalty to another authority.
Of course, the allocating authority has the discretion not to impose part of the penalty that would otherwise arise if it concludes that the county has failed to meet its target because of the district. That is perhaps better than arguing who should pay the fine. There is a mixture of incentives and powers already in the Bill if we accept these government amendments. Whatever the view taken on the amendment on which the Government were just defeated, there is a general desire on all sides for disposal and collection authorities to work together. That would not be enhanced by introducing the shifting of the penalty. However, we accept the logic behind the amendments in my name. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smithhad given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 22, Amendment No. 23:
Line 11, at end insert—
""(1B) Where a waste collection authority which is not a waste disposal authority fails to discharge its duty under subsection (4A) of section 51 of this Act, and as a result the waste disposal authority receives a penalty, the Minister shall have a duty to transfer the penalty to the waste collection authority.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 was tabled to fulfil a lack which was pointed out to me at an earlier stage in the Bill when I was trying to deal with the problems of reducing transport. I was properly checked by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the Minister because that amendment contained no means of enforcement.
956
The Minister's amendments are very welcome and of course, if everybody plays the game straight, there will be no problem. However, if somebody slips, there is no mechanism for enforcement. If the allocating authority were minded to impose a penalty, it could do so only on the disposal authority, not on the collection authority that had caused the problem.
I am grateful to the Minister for raising this matter. If the allocating authority were minded to withhold any penalty that was due to the inaction or inappropriate action by a collection authority where the collection authority was not the disposal authority, that would remove the need to transfer the penalty. That is an option—it is not a fact. The Government are proposing that we have in place a system under which the Government—the "allocating authority"—could impose a penalty on a waste disposal authority because of the action or inaction of a third party. That is patently unjust.
This leaves me with a personal dilemma about whether to press the amendment, bearing in mind the time and our practice on a Thursday. Given that we now have a joint waste strategy between the waste disposal and the waste collection authorities, as well as some of the other things that have happened today, perhaps we can let it go. But it may be necessary for someone in another place to return to this issue and make sure that the matter is quite clear. On the whole, it is not particularly nice to leave doors open which are better closed or not to open doors when they are closed. In the circumstances, however, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 23, as an amendment to Amendment No. 22, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 22 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Commencement]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 21, line 36, after "17" insert ", (Directions to waste collection authorities in England)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Extent]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 22, line 27, leave out ", 29 and 30" and insert "and 29 to (Directions to waste collection authorities in England)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended. from 1.31 to 3 p.m.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Personal Statement
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a personal statement. In the debate on pensions yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said that I gave,
"the figure for stakeholder pensions sold as 1½ million".
He went on to say:
"I hope that the Minister"—
that is, my noble friend Lady Hollis—
"will therefore recognise that her colleague"—
that is, me—
"misled the House by a factor of 20 per cent".—[Official Report, 5/3/03; col. 859.]
This is what happened. My briefing said that the figure was 1.15 million. I said, and I quote from the tape:
"There are 335.000 employers involved with stakeholder pensions. A hundred"—
and I hesitated—
"one and a half million stakeholder pensions have been sold".
I clearly mis-spoke. I apologise unreservedly to the House for that error, but I hope that the House will acquit me of any intention to mislead.

Epilepsy
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take following the review of the management of patients with epilepsy by the University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service Trust.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we have commissioned an independent review of this issue which is due to be published in the spring. We will consider its findings very carefully alongside the local clinical review to decide what further action may he needed.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, in asking my Question, I must declare an interest as president of Epilepsy Action. I welcome the fact that such a review is taking place. However, can my noble friend indicate whether, perhaps as a result of the review, the Department of Health will undertake further investigation into whether there is a prevalence of misdiagnosis in other hospitals? I make the point particularly because of the shortage of epilepsy-trained neurologists. I wonder what action is being taken and what resources are being provided to improve the situation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my noble friend on the
958
announcement today of her appointment as chair of the Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV. She is right to suggest that there are lessons to be learned nationally from what happened in Leicester. It is a. fact that there are problems in diagnosing epilepsy by doctors. We intend that the treatment and care of people with epilepsy will be part of the National Service Framework on Long-Term Conditions. My noble friend's point on diagnosis will indeed be covered in that national service framework.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, according to the CSAG report, epilepsy misdiagnosis in children Ina) occur in up to 40 per cent of cases in this country. In view of that, what steps will the Government take to require strategic health authorities to provide specialist epilepsy neurological services and training to other paediatric staff?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I believe I have already mentioned, the National Service Framework on Long-Term Conditions will be extremely helpful in assisting the NHS to ensure that it has the right kind of services and deals with some of the diagnosis problems to which the noble Baroness referred. In the past two weeks, we have published an action plan on epilepsy which involves provision of support and information. We are also referring to NICE the question of drug treatment for epilepsy. On the workforce issue, we have had an increase in the number of consultants within the paediatric specialty and a small increase in the number of consultants within paediatric neurology. Within the specialist interest nursing profession, we are again seeing an increase in the number of epilepsy nurses. I recognise that more needs to be done, but I believe that we have set the framework in which to tackle these important issues.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the National Society for Epilepsy. Is the Minister aware of the disappointment expressed by many bodies in the world of epilepsy care that the amount of money earmarked in the Government's action plan for the 380,000 people in this country who have epilepsy is a mere £1.2 million? How far does he believe that that sort of money will go among so many epilepsy patients?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the point about the specific funding announcement is that £1.2 million is for the non-NHS modernisation agency project, which will help to improve the quality and access to neurology services, and that £288,000 is going to the National Society for Epilepsy to improve information and support for people with epilepsy and their families. It is a relatively small amount of resource. However, we are moving away from the earmarking of funds nationally towards placing as much money as possible at the local level, and it will be for local primary care trusts to decide how to spend that money. I accept that in doing that we have a responsibility to ensure that there is enough guidance for primary care trusts so that they do indeed spend the

959
resources in this important area. That is the purpose of the action plan, the national service framework and the referral to NICE in relation to epilepsy drugs.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that research into epilepsy, and indeed any other long-term illness, has nothing to do with primary care trusts? Can he say how much money the Government are spending on research in this particular area?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, much of the research in this area will be funded through the Medical Research Council. The latest figures that I have are for 2000–01, when the MRC spent about £3 million in this area. However, the council also spends larger sums on basic research on nerve function and damage, and that should also be effective. In addition, one of our R&D programmes is sponsoring a project on a randomised control trial of longer-term clinical outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of standard and new anti-epileptic drugs. That is being funded at a cost of about £1.3 million.

Drug Courts
3.7 p.m.
Lord Adebowaleasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards drug courts in light of the publication of the updated drug strategy and the proposed introduction of a single generic community sentence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the experience of drug test and treatment order review courts shows that there is much to be gained by allowing sentencers to play a more active part in the review and monitoring of drug treatment and testing orders. To be most effective, we need to ensure that there is continuity through the stages of the court process, that there is consistency in practice, and that sentencers have the opportunity, training and guidance to build experience. We are currently considering how we can build on best court practice and, subject to the outcome of any pilots, I hope that we will be able to give courts a much greater role to play in the rehabilitation of drug misusing offenders.
Lord Adebowale: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for that reply. I also declare an interest as chief executive of Turning Point social care, an organisation with some experience in the provision of drug courts in places such as Wakefield. I personally have long been an advocate of the drug court model. I believe that it offers a considerable advantage over traditional court hearings in terms of its status as well as more direct benefits by having a panel where specially trained
960
magistrates can both understand the complexity of drug use and offer a sensitive and supportive role to offenders over a long period of time.
The drug court pilots in England and Scotland have shown that drug courts are more successful than the traditional court-review approach in retaining people in treatment for longer. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that future growth in that regard would result in considerable savings in the criminal justice system, improved treatment outcomes and wider savings to society more generally? Will he consider expanding drug courts as a means of delivering the drug treatment requirements of the community sentence?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work that Turning Point has done in relation to a large number of projects which help to reduce dependency on drugs and thereby reduce crime driven by drugs. I also pay tribute to the work that Turning Point did in the Wakefield and Pontefract courts in the period before drug treatment and training orders were introduced. I agree in principle with what my noble friend says; namely, that the more experience a court has of dealing with drug offenders, the better able it is to review the progress of drug treatment and training orders and to pass appropriate sentences. We need to consider how we can involve courts more in the process of ensuring that the sentences they pass are effective in dealing with drug-fuelled offending.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, given the prevalence of drug-taking in prison, which reinforces the link between drugs and crime, and the fact that the updated strategy refers to expanding treatment provision in prisons, will the Minister explain what that commitment really means in terms of how many additional treatment places and what additional resources will be made available and so on?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it means first and foremost providing more treatment than is currently available. The current amount of money available for drug treatment is somewhere in the region of £450 million per annum. By the year ending 2005, we envisage having £573 million available to provide drug treatment. That will include drug treatment available for those in custody, which is a very important area on which to focus. However, we should emphasise that drug treatment in prison is of most help if support is given after the offender leaves prison. So many people immediately fall into their old ways when they leave prison unless support is given at that point. That is what we need to focus on as well as providing proper treatment.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although treatment, counselling and help are of the greatest assistance in the war against drugs, we shall win that war only if we hit hard the drug barons and organised drug crime at its source? How are the

961
Government's initiatives to obtain greater co-operation from financial authorities on issues such as the laundering of drugs money and the movement of drug profits succeeding?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the proposition advanced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It is not just a matter of seeking to help people who are dependent on drugs to prevent them returning to crime, but also of hitting drug barons and the people who are making huge amounts of money out of crime. We have dealt with money laundering to some extent in previous legislation. We have also provided a very effective legal framework in the Proceeds of Crime Act to ensure that those who make money out of drugs, whether through money laundering or in other ways, are hit effectively through the judicial system. We are putting in train legal measures to ensure that that will be the case.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is rather ludicrous that it is quicker to get treatment for drug abuse in prison than it is in the civilian world? For example, people in Birmingham have complained of having to wait for up to a year for drug treatment. Will my noble and learned friend have a word with his noble friend at the Department of Health to see what can be done about that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords. I am very aware of the fact that in certain parts of the country it takes too long to access drug treatment. That is a matter that the Home Office and the Department of Health are working on together. As regards the point about people in prison accessing drug treatment earlier than those outside prison, difficult judgments have to be made, but society as a whole is helped if the people who commit drug-fuelled crime have their need for drugs reduced.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, given the problems associated with drug treatment in prison when a rehabilitation course comes to an end, will the Government give serious consideration to converting some prisons wholly to the task of rehabilitation to get people off drugs?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, over the past few years the focus in prison as regards seeking to rehabilitate people from both drug and alcohol dependency has changed. I do not think that it would be appropriate to focus a whole prison on rehabilitation. We need to focus on steps to detoxify prisoners who are dependent on drugs or alcohol. The Prison Service is now focusing effectively on that.
Baroness Howe of ldlicote: My Lords, in light of the updating of the drug strategy, what view are the
962
Government taking of the growing use of gat in this country which has significant health implications quite apart from the drug aspect?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness on that matter.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend give us some indication of the success of drug treatment and training orders? How long have they been in operation? Can he say how effective they are in preventing reoffending and keeping people drug free as compared with a group of people who receive standard sentences without DTTOs?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, pilot DTTOs began in March 1999 and ended in March 2000. They were rolled out nationally in October 2000. We have not yet had time to work out how effective they have been as one needs to look at reconviction rates over a longer period than the two years in which they have been in operation. The number of DTTOs made by the courts has now reached approximately 6,000 a year. The courts consider them attractive disposals in relation to drug-fuelled offenders. Shortly we shall publish material to indicate how effective they have been.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the overcrowding of the prison system and the subsequent frequent movements of prisoners between one prison and another is having a deleterious effect on the delivery of drug treatment in prison?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one should put the matter in context. The focus of prisons has changed over the past few years from being simply places where there is no education, no treatment and no rehabilitation at all to places where conditions have improved. People are focusing on seeking measures to reduce reoffending. Things are very much better than they were in, for example, 1992. Of course, the fact that there are more people in prison than previously makes the task harder but we should not lose sight of the progress that has been made.

Teaching Standards
3.17 p.m.
Lord Quirkasked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they are satisfied with the progress of teaching, learning and administration noted in the annual report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools published on 5th February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords. the annual report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England confirms that standards of pupil attainment have continued to rise and that that improvement is the

963
result of better teaching. Inspectors found more good teaching and fewer poor lessons than ever before. Although there is much to celebrate, we recognise that we must build on the significant gains made in primary schools and secure similar improvements in secondary and further education.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Indeed, there has been welcome progress and there is a great deal in the report that is very pleasing. But what will the Government do about the great deal that is less pleasing? for example, I refer to the 25 per cent of FE colleges that are found to be unsatisfactory, the significant disparity between boys' and girls' achievement in maintained schools—oddly enough, not matched in the independent sector—and the sad lack of achievement by Afro-Caribbean children (puzzlingly only after about the age of nine or 10) as compared with all other groups.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, as always, makes some very important points. I shall try to deal with them briefly although each one of them could give rise to a debate. The noble Lord's remarks are absolutely right. Of the children who transfer to secondary school, a quarter of pupils, mostly boys, do not reach the required standards in literacy and numeracy. Those areas need to be tackled. We are considering carefully how we support boys in that regard. Boys from disadvantaged backgrounds are particularly susceptible to low achievement. Much work is being carried out on that matter.
As regards ethnic minorities, we have just begun consultation on a new strategy to determine how we can more successfully support children from ethnic minorities. That includes considering the role of Saturday schools that have been successful for many ethnic minority communities and also the excellent work that Ofsted has already done on identifying the factors that make a difference to the attainment of children from ethnic minorities in both primary and secondary schools. I urge noble Lords to examine that strategy.
We accept that more needs to be done to ensure that the needs of students in further education are met, particularly those of average and less able students. A strategy is under way to try to develop that further.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Chief Inspector of Schools about the absolutely vital importance to be attached to leadership in schools? If so, what steps are in hand to enhance the abilities of those already in post as head teachers and those who will come into post over the next five to 10 years?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the chief inspector and the noble Lord that leadership has been identified as the fundamental principle behind school achievement. Every noble Lord who has had the privilege of visiting our schools will know from his own experience that that is true.
964
The leadership incentive grant is one way in which we hope to support better leadership, particularly in schools where heads are struggling and might benefit from working more collaboratively with other colleagues. We have always said that, with the work of the National College for School Leadership, we want to make sure that there is true leadership in every school.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the national leadership college in Nottingham is doing an excellent job? Unfortunately, it has been going for only about 12 to 18 months, but the progress that it has made in that time is remarkable. Does she agree that it will go further if we can give it more assistance?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree. I hope that, by talking about extra assistance, my noble friend is not asking me to commit more money, which I am not allowed to do. We had hoped that the identification and support for school leadership would prove a success in a short time, and I believe that that is the case. It is reflected in the chief inspector's report.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the problem of Afro-Caribbean, or in this case Afro-American, boys doing less well than girls in schools has been effectively addressed in Washington in the United States? By introducing male mentors into primary schools, the situation has successfully been turned around.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. That is one reason why we have introduced mentors into our schools, and they have had a dramatic effect. There is no doubt that, for many of our pupils, the absence of a suitable role model can be a factor in their educational attainment. We are looking to increase our provision on the subject through the Excellence in Cities programme and our work to raise the attainment of particular groups of children.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I want to press the Minister on the further education issue. She said that the Government were developing a strategy. However, one of the chief inspector's criticisms was of the absence of any kind of joined-up strategic thinking at local level. Will she tell us a little more about precisely what is being done at that level?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would be glad to tell the House about that. From April this year, strategic area reviews are taking place, led by the local LSCs. They will look at the breadth, range and accessibility of provision in further education. There will be increased capital investment, which is important, and they will look to ensure that provision meets the needs of the 16 to 19 year-old learners.
We have the largest ever investment in further education—the Success for All programme—which will tackle poor provision within colleges, higher

965
funding for higher performance, support and intervention for unsatisfactory performance and, from August 2003, three-year development plans agreed with the local LSCs setting out measures to improve the teaching for support for students and so on. We are setting up a national leadership college, based very much on our experience with schools, from September 2003. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness some of the ideas on which we are working.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issue of children with ethnic background is oversimplified? The report points out rather well some specific difficulties among children from ethnic minorities. For example, children with an Asian background outstrip many children of the indigenous population. What research is going on to investigate why Afro-Caribbean children in particular do not perform so well in our schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. There are huge differences between different groups. Within the Asian community, for example, children from an Indian background will be more successful than children from Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds, who do less well than many of their Afro-Caribbean counterparts. As has been said, in the Afro-Caribbean population it is the transfer to secondary school with which boys in particular have difficulties.
Within our work, we are looking carefully at what I would describe for our purposes as working-class white boys, a group who themselves do not do so well in school. One critical factor is that, for the first time, we will have information over the next year about the background of children in order—and only in order—to be able to track educational attainment in a more successful way. We already know quite a lot about the different groups of children and their underachievement. Translating that into finding specific and new ways to support those children is the key, and we are engaged on that.

Public Information: Chemical or Biological Attack
3.25 p.m.
Lord Hanningfieldasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will supply the public with basic information on measures they should take to assist themselves and others before the arrival of the emergency services at the scene of a chemical or biological attack.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government do not currently issue in advance detailed guidance to the public on measures that they might take if they become victims of a chemical or biological attack.
966
The response to chemical or biological incidents, accidental or otherwise, depends on a number of factors. The emergency services are best placed to decide the appropriate response, taking into account the relevant factors. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in publishing his Statement on Monday 3rd March, and in his moving of the order renewing Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, made it clear that the Government would establish a dedicated website. Whatever information is useful to the public will be posted on it.
The Government and emergency services will, of course, make available immediate information and advice in the event of a discernible threat or the carrying out of such a threat in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The whole question has had a lot of national media attention this week. As the leader of a large local authority adjacent to London, I ask whether he will make more resources available to local government. He talked about the emergency services, but local government will be the main emergency service. We are told that we might have to expect 20,000 people an hour corning out of London, but no provision or plan has been made for that. Although I do not want to be alarmist, we need to know more about what might happen. Will the Minister give us more information?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is extremely important not to be alarmist and for people simply to be alert. The message from central government is that to give detailed advice on a particular sort of threat is both misleading and unhelpful. The right course is to wait and see what the immediate threat might he under any circumstances, and then take advice from the emergency services. The more detailed advice one gives in a vacuum, the more problems one causes.
Lord Tope: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the study published this week by London First and the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which showed that 80 per cent of small and medium-sized businesses had no contingency plans for a terrorist attack or mass evacuation" Do the Government intend to take any action in that respect?
Lord Falconer of Thorolon: My Lords, I repeat that a terrorist attack could mean a variety of things. It is critical to be alert but not alarmed, and to be clear to take advice from the emergency services whenever there is an immediate threat or a threat that matures. Simply to try to cover every possible eventuality would lead to confusion and difficulty when the problem arises.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, after the hurricane, all the Whitehall telephone exchanges were out of order, something that

967
never happened during the Blitz? Is he sure that steps have been taken to see that that does not happen again?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware that in 1987 all the Whitehall exchanges went down. I know that the noble Baroness would have been, because she was a Minister at the time and would have been unable to phone friends and colleagues. Communication is utterly vital in relation to an emergency, and I very much hope—I am sure—that communications have been focused on.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that many people in America are stockpiling bottled water and food reserves in their homes? What does he say about that? What advice would he give to someone such as myself who might ask whether they should do the same?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, people should not stockpile at the moment. There is no point in taking such measures. The right course is to be alert, continue as before, and accept the advice of the emergency services when a discernible threat emerges or occurs.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in view of what the noble and learned Lord said about being alarmist, will he put into perspective the proposed London exercise on a massive scale, which we have read about in the press in the past few days?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the right course for any organisation in central or local government is to be prepared but not to identify or seek to guard against a particular kind of threat when we do not know the precise detail of what may happen. It is right that we should be prepared and should have tried out our services against the possibility of an incident occurring but we should not be alarmist. We should focus on continuing as before and on being willing to take the advice of the emergency services.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, in the light of the importance that the Government are now giving to civil defence, can the Minister tell the House, first, how many times the senior government committee responsible for this policy area—the Ministerial Group on Protective and Preventative Security, chaired by the Home Secretary—has met? Secondly, how many of the 10 Ministers on the committee have attended each meeting? Thirdly, how often is it expected to meet in the future?
Does the Minister understand that if the Government refuse to answer those simple and innocuous questions on the slight fig leaf of Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, the public will be entitled to believe that the Government do not give real attention to this important area?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the public would not be right to think
968
that we do not give the appropriate attention to that issue. I cannot tell the House the precise number of times the committee meets, but it meets as often as is necessary. This is a very high priority for the Government.

Water Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Government's approach to the water environment and water industry is firmly grounded in sustainable development. That is emphasised and discussed in detail in Directing the Flow, which was published last November. Directing the Flow responded to calls from stakeholders with a wide range of interests for an overarching government strategy that would take a longer-term look at the issues facing water. It has been broadly welcomed.
The principles of sustainability are apparent throughout the Bill. At the same time it does not contain the whole of the Government's policies for water. It is not directing the flow in legislative form, and it is not meant to be. It complements a range of measures which are already in place or are being developed elsewhere. These include giving effect to the Water Framework Directive consideration of the spending priorities for the next periodic review of water pricing in 2004.
Part 1 of the Bill deals with water resources, abstraction and impounding. The Government launched the move towards the sustainable use of water resources at the water summit in 1997. The 10-point action plan at that summit included a review of the abstraction licensing regime. After all, the existing system is based on legislation dating from 1963. Following consultation, the Government published their decisions in March 1999.
Along with the provisions in Part 3 about water resource management and drought plans, this part is about long-term sustainable use of water resources, very much against the background of climate change. That is also a major aim of the EU Water Framework Directive. The Bill and the directive are moving forward together.
Sustainability must mean striking a balance between potentially conflicting demands. The provisions in the Bill seek to strike such a balance. At the centre of the process are water resource management and drought plans. Water undertakers already produce those voluntarily, but the Bill makes them compulsory and enforceable. They will sit within the framework set by the Environment Agency's water resources strategy, Water Resources for the Future, and their catchment abstraction management strategies.
At the same time all new licences will be time-limited, normally to 12 years. From 2012 abstraction licences can be revoked without compensation if they can be shown to be seriously environmentally damaging, in accordance with the "polluter pays"

969
principle. The time after which an unused licence can be revoked because it has not been used is reduced from seven to four years.
We recognise that there are concerns about the cumulative effect of those changes but sustainability does not mean assuming that things can carry on the same way for ever; it means making sure that we fully understand the level of resources and demand. It means having the levers to make changes where necessary, but also that existing activities should be able to continue unless there are good reasons o for adding new limits.
The Bill makes the licensing system more effective, but also reduces the regulatory burden. Most importantly, the new abstraction licence threshold of 20 cubic metres per day means that an estimated 20,000 small-scale abstractors will be exempt from licensing. That is a big deregulatory measure. Farmers, in particular, will benefit from that change as many of these small abstractions are made by them.
The Bill also brings some previously exempt uses of water into the licensing system. We know that there will he quite a lot of attention on those provisions, with the impact on trickle irrigation being a particular concern. The Government are keen to see trickle irrigation continue and flourish as we recognise that it can be an efficient use of water. But we believe that there should be fair treatment across all abstractors, so that a licensed abstractor is not adversely affected by a large, neighbouring, unlicensed abstraction.
The aim of Part 2 is to provide a new and better regulatory environment for the water industry and its consumers. It originated in the 1998 White Paper, A Fair Deal for Consumers—Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation. There needs to be a basic approach to regulation across utilities. However, the Government's response to the report by the Better Regulation Task Force on economic regulators stressed that regulation is best done to suit the circumstances of the market that is being regulated. There are features unique to water. Those include the need for close involvement by the environmental and drinking water regulators, and the ongoing need for large-scale capital investment.
We need a sustainable industry if the Government's objectives and consumers' needs are to be met. The Bill replaces the existing individual Director General of Water Services with a regulatory authority, which will help to safeguard transparency and consistency. That meets a recommendation of the Better Regulation Task Force. The Bill also places a duty on the authority to look at means of achieving sustainable development, while continuing to ensure the financial health of the industry in a way which is unique among utilities.
The Bill places the consumer at the heart of regulation in two ways. First, it raises protection of consumers' interests to the top tier of the economic regulator's duties. Secondly, it sets up an independent consumer council for water whose sole purpose is to promote the interests of consumers. The Bill gives the council power to investigate complaints, carry out
970
more general investigations into consumer issues and publish advice and information. To help it with those tasks it has the power to demand information from the regulator and undertakers.
The Bill will strengthen transparency and quality of service through various provisions. The Secretary of State will be able to set standards of performance without first needing an application from the regulator. That will enable the consumer council, for example, to approach the Secretary of State direct, increasing the level of its independence. If companies fail in their statutory functions they can he fined, potentially up to 10 per cent of their turnover.
These provisions must be used sensibly to avoid adding unnecessarily to costs or making it more difficult to attract investment, which would not benefit the industry or the consumer. For example, we need to avoid the temptation of frequent new standards. A regulatory impact assessment must first show that should any new standards be introduced, they really will be beneficial. Companies also need to know how and in what circumstances the power to fine will be used and that there will be no overlap between enforcement authorities.
As regards competition, genuine, open competition can lead to better prices, more innovation and improved quality of services. But competition is a means of achieving these benefits and not an end in itself. In the case of water there are wider objectives: to protect public health; to protect and improve the environment; to meet the Government's social goals, including affordability of water supplies: and to safeguard services to customers by sustaining an industry that can provide water efficiently and effectively. These wider objectives led the Government to the conclusions that we announced in March last year, and developed in the consultation paper published in July.
The Government believe that keeping the undertakers as vertically integrated companies, with clear responsibility for the operation of their networks—including water resource planning and investment—is important if we are to meet those wider objectives. New entrants will be able to use the undertaker's network to supply their customers, by buying water wholesale from the undertaker and providing retail services to customers, or by introducing their own water stock into a network for onward supply to their customers through common carriage.
We concluded that competition should not include household customers. The regulatory regime, which we would need in order to protect public health, social and environmental objectives and customers' essential needs, would be too complex and costly and still leave too many risks. Finally, we decided that even for commercial and industrial customers we should adopt a cautious approach starting with a consumption threshold of 50 megalitres a year. Introducing competition into the public water supply is a first. We need to be able to monitor how such competition works.

971
We would expect a review of the situation by the three regulators no more than three years after the provisions come into force, to consider the impact of the competition framework, including whether the 50 megalitres threshold is still appropriate. The Bill then provides a power to alter the threshold.
The Bill provides the essential framework for a workable system of competition. It sets up a licensing regime to make sure that the licensed water suppliers—the new competitive players—act properly and do not endanger the water supply that they feed into. It also regulates the relationship between licensed suppliers and existing undertakers so that they are all operating in a fair market.
The Bill also contains a number of miscellaneous provisions, which, although not substantial, are nevertheless important for our water priorities. I could put them into a few broad categories. There are provisions that help to enhance the protection of people and property. These include amendments to the Reservoirs Act to enhance existing arrangements for reservoir safety and provisions to enable a streamlining of flood defence organisation and funding.
There are provisions that help to reduce pollution of waterways and groundwater. In particular, the Coal Authority receives powers so that it can take much more effective action against pollution from abandoned coal mines. Finally, there are provisions of benefit to water companies and their consumers. For example, the Bill clarifies how the trade effluent consent system operates. It makes it easier for sewerage undertakers to adopt new lateral drains—the part between the edge of the premises and the main sewer—and reduces the chances of consumers being faced with unexpected repair costs.
The three pillars of sustainable development are environmental, economic and social. Those issues and the right balance between them must be at the heart of our approach to the resources of the water environment and the management of the water and sewerage industry. The Bill takes this agenda forward in such a way that, we believe, gets the balance about right.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is satisfied with the great majority of powers proposed in the Bill, but it recommends that two Henry VIII powers defining the regulation-making powers for the Bill generally should be subject to the affirmative, rather than to the negative, procedure. We are content to accept the committee's recommendations and will ensure that amendments to that effect are tabled. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for introducing the Water Bill this afternoon. We, on these Benches, in principle welcome its many proposals. It has an important
972
sustainable approach to the balance between the water needs of business, members of the public and of the environment in its widest sense. I fear, however, that the Bill will add levels of bureaucracy and costs; it certainly introduces sweeping powers and uses language, such as "significant" and "serious", which give lawyers field days.
The Minister will therefore not be surprised to learn that we have reservations about some of the proposals and many questions, which we shall seek to put in Committee. All of us recognise the crucial part that water plays in our daily lives. We expect to have "on tap" clean, good-quality water at all times, come what may. In introducing the Bill now, the Government have clearly decided to have little regard to the implications of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). That directive came into force in December 2000 and has to be transposed into British law by 31st December 2003. The directive aims to achieve an integrated approach to river basin management and requires all inland and coastal waters to achieve "good status" environmental objectives by 2015.

Knowing that, I am surprised that the Government are pushing ahead with the Bill at this time. I understand that the Minister in another place, Mr Morley, has implied that any additional requirements following the directive will be put before the House in the form of statutory instruments. I perhaps am not the only one who finds that unacceptable, particularly when we have the Bill before us. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—who knows how difficult it is for the House to alter or to have any influence upon statutory instruments—will give an explanation for that in his winding-up speech.
Over the years we have been faced with drought conditions, although in the past three years floods have caused havoc. Indeed, it was because of the years of drought back in 1997 that the Government held a water summit which produced a 10-point plan for improved water management. Since then, and in particular in the past three years, we have experienced swings between drier weather and deluge. The Water Bill addresses the impact of drought conditions and plans accordingly, though I was disappointed that the issue of water conservation and efficiency is not fully taken on board.
However, I do not think that equal thought has been given to the question of flooding. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will deal with that matter at greater length when he speaks later. In addition, the Government's decision to create larger new towns, particularly in the South and the South East, must take into account the environmental consequences. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what budget the Government have included in the costings for these new towns with regard to water and flooding.
Part 1 of the Bill seeks in general to amend the abstraction licensing framework, promoting greater water conservation and giving consumers a greater role. It provides the Environment Agency with

973
additional tools for managing water resources and stronger powers to take action against abstraction that causes environmental damage.
I feel sure that the Minister will receive briefings from businesses which are concerned that the new abstraction licences are to be issued with a time limit. The Government and the Environment Agency, I understand, have indicated a suggested time of 12 years. That, for some businesses, is too short a time span over which to write down their costs. Even if a flexible approach is taken, the business concerned may have no guarantee that approval may be given for a longer period. Does the Minister accept that that is and will be a deterrent to those who want to invest? Will he explain how we will encourage greater competition—something that we support? That is especially difficult when the licence may be revoked without compensation.
We welcome the proposals to remove the need for small businesses that use less than 20 cubic metres of water a day to obtain licences. That accounts for between 1 and 2 per cent of the volume of water abstracted, but affects as many as 20,000 of the current 48,000 licence holders—and, as the noble Baroness said, many farmers.
Part 2 deals with the new regulatory arrangements. The director general of Ofwat will be replaced by a regulatory authority appointed by the Secretary of State. An independent consumer council will be established to raise consumer issues, represent their views and deal with consumer complaints. We welcome the requirement that it should be required to take rural needs into account. A new utilities panel will be responsible for competition issues.
The Government, their agencies and offices are often major users and, sadly, polluters of water. What assurance can the Minister give that a regulatory authority appointed by him will have sufficient independence to take action against the Government—or local government? What protect ion will there he for senior officials of the authority against removal from office by political direction?
Part 3 deals with a range of specific issues, such as the establishment of a new regional flood defence committee for such areas as may be specified. It also allows for the abolition of existing local flood defence committees. The power to abolish such committees should be exercised with caution. It is important that local knowledge should not be lost and that it is adequately represented in the membership of any replacing regional committee. I should be grateful if the Minister could define a region for us. Are they to be the regions as we now know them, or a mix of different parts of existing regions? We have serious concerns and urge caution against making change purely for change's sake.
Is this not another case of the Government failing to match up to their devolution rhetoric and removing decisions from local determination? Is not the motive here part of the Government's obsession to set up unwanted regional assemblies? Is there not a risk that a region, as designated by Mr Prescott, might choose
974
to downgrade local concerns about flood risk to fulfil its other objectives—on housing, say? Whatever the reason, the suspicion inevitably exists.
Part 4 deals with miscellaneous items, as the noble Baroness said. I shall refer to one: the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The Bill also transfers existing local authority functions relating to reservoirs. I am sure that I am not the only one who has grave concerns that the Bill takes away local functions and gives huge additional powers to the Environment Agency.
The Bill has created wide interest. I have received papers from Water UK, Water Voice, wildlife groups, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Consumer Council, the Environment Agency and British Soft Drinks, to name but a few. That is unusual at this stage of a Bill, and shows how important it is that we get it right.
I now turn now to some specific concerns that we shall raise in Committee. The noble Baroness touched on trickle irrigation. Clause 7 would remove current exemptions to the licensing system, such as trickle irrigation. That system is an efficient and effective method of irrigating crops. Such a removal could have a devastating effect on horticulture and agriculture. Clause 25 amends section 61 of the Water Resources Act 1991 by reducing the period of non-use of licence from seven to four years.
On what grounds has that proposal been made? Was consideration given of the practice, which is current in the farming community, of lengthening crop rotation, which is being sought to encourage good farming practices and a better environment?
Other organisations have expressed serious doubts about the time-limiting of the licences, to which I have already referred. I summarise their concerns as having in common complaints about lack of flexibility in the Government's approach and fears that if the limits are too tight, businesses will be unable to recover their capital investment within the limits set.
There has also been adverse comment on the proposals to set an efficiency duty on water companies alone, rather than on all abstractors, and to set different licence conditions for the new water suppliers than exist for water companies. Several contributors have raised doubts about the proposed competition in supply to major users—in particular, the danger that that will be achieved only if prices to smaller users are increased to compensate.
In Clause 27, the proposal to revoke or vary abstraction licences of a right if they are causing environmental damage, without compensation, after 15th July 2012, in Clause 27, is another area of concern, and must include an appeals mechanism for any decision to withdraw the licence.
I now turn the Select Committee report, to which the noble Baroness referred—I am grateful that she did. In paragraphs 17 and 18, it refers to Clause 95 and recommends that the power to amend or repeal an Act of Parliament under Clause 92(2) should be subject to the affirmative procedure, which the noble Baroness has conceded. Paragraph 18, referring to Cla use 96,

975
states that the Select Committee recommends that the power to amend or repeal under Clause 96(6) should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am grateful that that has been established at this stage.
This is a big Bill with many parts. Some of it is fairly dry in setting up procedures—perhaps not a very good pun, as we are dealing with a water Bill. Forgive me, I must be getting a dry throat. But it is our duty to scrutinise the Bill and ensure that we get it right. Water is a precious commodity. As I said, we expect it to be on tap and of quality all the while. That does not happen just by chance. It is our responsibility to ensure that the Bill is practical, fair and user-friendly and will bring the outcomes for which we all hope for individuals, companies and the environment.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, which should be an exciting Bill, because water is an exciting and emotive subject. Enough of it is essential to life and, one could say, it is the essence of life. Too much of it becomes threatening, as flood water. Climate change is making weather patterns ever more difficult to predict. Although we have grown better at the art of prediction and try hard to control water supply and floods, we seem ever more at the mercy of the elements. We are, at last, learning to work with the grain of nature, not against it. Therefore, the noble Baroness will be disappointed to learn that I do not find the Bill exciting and that we on these Benches are disappointed by it.
Technological advances mean that we can review how we use, conserve and recycle water in ways that were not dreamt of even 30 years ago. The future should offer a better chance to restore a balance in this country between our needs and those of other species. We in this country should view ourselves as fortunate to have such an adequate water supply. It is a national resource that enables Britain to grow excellent crops, to raise prime livestock, as we often hear in your Lordships' House, and to allow a range of industries to function as well as supporting generous domestic usage. It can and must also support our wonderful wetlands, marshes, fens, broads and the huge variety of other natural habitats.
But this cannot be described as an exciting Bill that furthers many of those aims. It is a regulatory Bill, necessary because water, a national resource, has been privatised. It is argued that privatisation has enabled investment to take place in the infrastructure that guarantees a regular supply, high-quality drinking water and the clean-up of waste water. It has also produced returns for shareholders. And there is less degradation of wetlands and pollution of rivers. So the picture has not been entirely grim since privatisation—that is far from the case.
But the downside is that we now have a complex web of regulations and a plethora of regulatory bodies. The Bill has concentrated hard on dealing with those regulatory issues; so hard that we have 200 pages of
976
regulation. But those pages contain no principles about water use or good regulation. The Government laid out excellent principles in their water policy paper, Directing the Flow, on which I commend them. The Minister said that not all their policies were included in the Bill; but I searched hard to find in it any of the policies expressed in Directing the Flow. It is sad that those fine words have not been translated into legislation.
During the passage of the Bill we shall table amendments to include in it some guiding principles. In its present form the Bill perpetuates, to some extent, the uneasy tensions between the regulating bodies. The Liberal Democrats will table amendments to redirect the aim of all concerned to the sustainability principles in which we believe. The Minister said that those principles were also important to the Government and were at the heart of the Bill. In Committee, we can help the Government to achieve their aim of introducing sustainability.
We were pleased with the approach in the European Union's Water Framework Directive, which was a largely British initiative. It redirects the way in which we work—to work with nature not struggle against it. The directive is based on natural catchment areas. We need to start work on it now; yet the Bill barely refers to the existence of the directive. I share Conservative Members' surprise at that. Several aspects of the Bill could have been strengthened. For example, the Water Services Regulation Authority could have been required to take account of the Water Framework Directive. Flood defence committees should have been reorganised along the lines of natural catchment areas, not according to lines on a map as the Bill currently suggests. I declare an interest, as my husband chairs a local flood defence committee. The Scottish Parliament's water Act builds on the opportunities offered by the Water Framework Directive. This Bill would be far stronger if it were amended to take a similar approach.
We will also table amendments to encourage the storage of surplus winter water for the benefit of farmers, upstream communities and habitats. That would enable downstream towns and cities regularly flooded under our present system to look to new land management practices to alleviate an ever-increasing threat. Such practical approaches are missing from the Bill.
The Bill makes three changes, albeit substantial ones, to the regulatory system. It enables the licensing system to be far more sensitive to the needs of the environment, which we welcome. However, it does little to ensure that holders use water efficiently, which is particularly disappointing. The amazing efficiencies that can be gained are best exemplified in the annual Water Efficiency Awards promoted by the Environment Agency, which involves examples from business, agriculture, commerce and industry. Our amendments would recognise the vast potential offered by the technological and working practice changes that people can use to achieve efficiencies, saving not only water but huge amounts of money.

977
The Government should commit to targets to stabilise water usage and, by conservation and efficient use of water, to increase our reserves. It is disappointing that the Bill contains no provisions to enable efficiencies—for example, in planning. Directing the Flow talks about joined-up policies, but there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that the construction industry builds according to best water practice. It is astonishing that, in the 21st century, the Government seem content to retain our essentially Victorian, water-borne sewerage system. It is not a forward-looking Bill.
Other opportunities are missed in the Bill, including aspects that we debated at length during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. The Government mention that one of the main, important principles of sustainable development in their water policy is recognising the benefits of water for people to use and enjoy now and in the future. They expand on the issue in paragraph 4.48 of Directing the Flow, saying that they are,
"committed to finding ways to increase access to water".
When my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie tabled amendments on the issue, the Minister assured him that something would he done. However, the Bill does nothing to encourage any further use of water in that recreational sense.
Directing the Flow acknowledges the requirement for product information about water use. The Government have made an effort in other areas; for example, they propose to introduce a labelling scheme for cars to promote energy efficiency. Where is water efficiency promotion in the Bill? We welcome the creation of the new consumer council for water. But its proposed powers are worryingly limited and will leave it dependent on the Secretary of State for a voice in some matters. That is an extraordinary state of affairs that we find most unsatisfactory and intend to try to change.
We support the fact that many smaller abstractors have been taken out of regulation. Some details on who is in and who is out of the regime need to be addressed. Other practical issues will also be the subject of amendments from these Benches. We will deal with streamlining in our amendments. The Bill will be the subject of many puns—untapped potential is another that springs to mind.
The Liberal Democrats are far more positive than the Conservatives about a regional approach to water use. I see that that has come as a surprise to Conservative Members. But, in this regard, perhaps more than any other, rainfall and water use are regional issues. The West of England has far more water than the East. A regional approach would be very productive. Regional assemblies could have an extremely strong relationship with their regional flood defence committees. Local expertise need not be lost in that way.
The principles behind a regulatory Bill should be spelt out in the Bill. Better regulation, though important to consumers, should not have been the end of the story of the Bill. Disappointingly, perhaps, we
978
can discount the competition element, which is in the Bill. However, it affects a small number of users and will not overcome the fact that the water industry in this country is, for most consumers. nothing but a complex monopoly of companies with a prime duty to their shareholders. I look forward particularly to hearing from my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth on the prospects for not-for-profit water companies.
When MORI carried out a survey of people's attitudes to their water charges, it found that people did mind about factors beyond price. They care about the environmental impact of their water use. They care about wildlife, wetlands, healthy rivers and clean beaches. It would be irresponsible of those whose prime duty it is to care for the environment to pay no heed to the price that people must pay for their water, especially those least able to afford the increases.
A regulation Bill must include the principle that each regulatory body has a duty to pay regard to the aims of the other. The ability of the water regulation authorities to pay attention to the need for sustainability must also be strengthened. It is only in that way that the consumer interest quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, will he at the heart of the Bill.
It is impossible to imagine a resource for which a sustainable approach is more important. We believe that it is possible to make the Bill fulfil at least some of the principles of sustainability, and we look forward to the Committee stage, when we will try to do so.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for the way in which she explained it. We, on this Bench—I use the royal "we" in that sense, as I represent many people outside the House who are interested in the subject—welcome the Bill, on the whole. Obviously, it is a Bill in which Greens should be involved.
Although I welcome the Bill, I have one or two doubts about it. Certainly, there are steps that we can take to improve it at a later stage. The first problem has been raised by every speaker so far—the overlap with the EU Water Framework. Directive. It is difficult to see why, when the Water Framework Directive is being incorporated into UK law, we should not wait until it has been incorporated before having our own Water Bill or do the whole thing at one time, rather than, in this peculiar way, doing the two things alongside each other. We should consider that point.
Some of the Bill does not live up to what the directive requires. Article 11(3)(e) of the Water Framework Directive refers to controls on abstraction. The recent consultation on the directive by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs specifically identified the requirement for such controls to be reviewed periodically. That is a requirement for the time-limiting of licences. The continuation of permanent licences, without a timetable and a mechanism for conversion, would represent a failure to transpose the directive adequately and, hence, would be a breach of its conditions.

979
The abstraction licences in operation are, I am told, sufficient to drain all the rivers of Britain. The system works only because the licences are not used in full and, sometimes, are hardly used at all. The fact that, to date, we have not been able to pull them in without compensation has meant that nothing has been done about that. We must seize the opportunity to tackle that problem root and branch. I hope that we will do so and not pussyfoot about, paying too much attention to the authorities, who have gained a great deal of income from the previous abstraction licences, with their lack of controls or ending dates.
There is also the issue of the promotion of efficient and sustainable water use. That also comes under Article 11(3)(e) of the directive, and it must be written more firmly into the Bill. When the noble Baroness who spoke from the Liberal Democrat Benches said that they hoped to put down amendments that would write sustainability more firmly into the Bill, it rang a bell with me. I shall join them in that matter.
We also need transparency. In some parts of the Bill the information needed by the authorities and by consumers is over-regulated, in the interests of commercial confidentiality and other such things. In dealing with water, which is a resource for all of us and one of the most basic resources in the world—after all, your Lordships are, I am told, 95 per cent composed of water which is a basic element—there is not much room for secrecy; we should have totally free access to information and the complete ability to write in sustainability.
Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile Bill. It is worth the immense amount of work that we will have to put into it in the forthcoming months.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her excellent and clear explanation of it. I apologise for not being here for the first minute of her speech; I was racing down through the Lobby, which was very crowded, trying not to push people over.
The Bill has been a long time in arriving, but it is the better for the care and consultation that has gone into its content. I was slightly alarmed by the notion that the Bill might be delayed even further. Some years ago, I served as a member of Ofwat's Thames customer services committee in London. That was soon after the privatisation of water services. Our committee was keen to serve customer interests as well as we could, but we were often frustrated in our efforts because we were accountable to the regulator's office, which sometimes led to conflict. Access to information was often a problem, as our right to information had to be directed through the Ofwat office, which was also under a duty to the businesses.
I enormously enjoyed my time as a local water watchdog. I was particularly interested to read the aspects of the Bill that addressed customer relations. It is interesting to note that the creation of WaterVoice in 2001–02 was an attempt to create a more arm's-length
980
relationship with Ofwat and a recognition that there is a distinct need to have an independent voice for the consumer.
Before making one or two remarks about the consumer voice and the issue of sustainability, I should like to refer to the time when I served on the Thames customer services committee. I remember attending a seminar in the mid-1990s to discuss the issues of competition and competitiveness and how more customer choice could be introduced into the provision of water services.
I am pleased that it is recognised in the Bill that this is a complex matter and one that does not lend itself easily to some of the solutions which have brought greater competition into other utilities. Last year, I found myself with two gas suppliers. Although it was a confusing situation, the quality of my gas did not change. Therefore, I am pleased that the Bill contains practical and sensible proposals as regards the issue of introducing competitiveness. It recognises that for ordinary consumers the main issues are the availability of clean, safe water at a reasonable price.
I am also pleased that the Bill seeks to bring order and clarity into who does what in the industry. I found that it was not always easy to remember who does what out of the River Authority, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency and so forth.
The discussion in the water industry about the consumers' voice has been long-running. It was addressed in the 1998 Green Paper, A fair deal for consumers—Modernising the framework for utility regulation. Since then discussions have continued as regards the draft Bill—we nearly got there in the Utility Act 2000.
I welcome the proposal in the Bill to set up a new independent consumer council for water, supported by a committee structure in England and Wales. It would replace the current system of customer representation which dates from 1990.
The consumer council for water must have strong powers to obtain, both from water companies and from Ofwat or the new regulator, all the information that it may reasonably require for the purposes of carrying out any of its statutory functions to represent water consumers. Under the Bill's proposal, if Ofwat fails to comply with the direction from the consumer council to provide information, Ofwat will be required to give reasons for its failure. If a water company fails to comply with a direction to provide information, the consumer council would have to refer the refusal to Ofwat to decide whether the company should be ordered to supply the information.
There must be a question as to whether it is satisfactory that the consumer council should rely on Ofwat in this way to carry out its own functions. However, it is to be welcomed that the Secretary of State is taking a power to prescribe an arbitrator to decide, in the event of disputes, whether Ofwat or a water company should be ordered to supply information requested by the consumer council. Those issues should be explored further in Committee.

981
The Consumers' Association raised issues about access to information. It has suggested that the Government make clear during the passage of the Bill those areas of information in which the council may be denied access. Such exceptions to the rule of providing requested information have already been identified in the energy market. This suggestion deserves examination.
My second point concerning information is that of the power to require information from new entrants to the market. The Government intend the consumer council for water to be an advocate for all consumers, including those larger users that are able to take advantage of the extension of competition. However, the Bill appears to prohibit the council from directing those new licensed suppliers to provide it with information. The council can direct only the traditional monopoly water companies to provide it with information to enable it to discharge its responsibilities as a consumer advocate. This may be another issue that needs to be addressed during the course of the Bill.
My third point is about the council's ability to publish information. As drafted, the Water Bill appears to set out what the Consumers' Association calls a "wicked" choice for the consumer council for water; namely, to risk being ineffectual when it knows a company to be causing considerable consumer detriment or to be in breach of its statutory powers—another issue to be addressed in Committee. These issues all need to be addressed in the context of what is a progressive and good proposal.
Turning to the issue of sustainability, I congratulate the Government on placing a duty of sustainability on the new regulatory authority. They signalled their intention to do so in their response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee in another place in January 2002. They stated that the new authority,
"shall act in a way best calculated … to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development".
That commitment has been carried through into the Bill.
Some might say that a strong commitment to a water conservation duty and the new powers in the Bill are unnecessary in the light of rainfall and floods of recent years. Water still remains a precious resource. The long-term problems of climate change, long, dry summers and heavy rainfall mean that the Bill must make an important contribution to changing water usage in the UK. The proposals concerning licensing abstraction are particularly welcome. The Wildlife and Countryside Link have circulated an apposite briefing on the issue in which they explain the link between this and the implementation of a biodiversity strategy. I welcome the Bill. I look forward to our discussion in Committee.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, in taking part in this debate, I wish to declare an interest. For 10 years I was chairman of a water company; for 13 years I was president of the then Water Companies' Association.
982
In general, the Bill before us is commendable. I shall comment briefly on some of its proposals. Before doing so—thinking of my now, long experience in the water industry—I am tempted to pose a simple question. What is new? The Bill is mainly about regulation of the water industry. The water industry has always been heavily regulated, and so it should be. Therefore, in some regards the Bill makes excellent proposals. It proposes to strengthen existing regulations and to simplify others. However, there are what have always been known in the water industry as "end of pipe" solutions—bits and pieces of solutions rather than looking at the network as a whole.
My noble friend referred to the Water Framework Directive. Perhaps that will provide a full look at the network as a whole. Perhaps the directive should have come before this Bill, but it has not. A new regulatory authority and a new independent consumer council are to be welcomed, as are the increased supervisory powers of the Environment Agency. I am a little sad about the Environment Agency taking over local government responsibilities. As chairman of a company, it was useful each year to entertain and explain our work to the appropriate committees of a number of local authorities in our catchment area. That was good for public relations. Of course. it could still happen but there will no longer be the same impetus for it.
I have misgivings about the provisions to increase opportunities for competition in the supply of water services. Competition in the water industry has never been easy to achieve. In my opinion, it still will not be. In the period when I presided over representatives of 28 statutory companies—of blessed:memory—there was a form of competition in that companies which were proud of their achievements compared themselves with each other. That brought a certain competition.
I fear that the advent of new entrants obtaining water from existing reservoirs and mains will present a considerable number of problems. The proposals in the Bill suggest that if there are new entrants, they will attract large customers from the incumbent company in each area. Large customers are always important to every company. Water is a regulated, price-capped industry with income set in advance. Therefore, if large users leave a company, prices for domestic customers will rise. Surely, that is the opposite of what competition should achieve.
My other major concern is that the Bill proposes time-limited abstraction licences, with the agency preferring a 12-year duration. That has been mentioned several times today. As anyone associated with the water industry knows, equipment lasts much longer than 12 years. As anyone associated with the industry also knows, investment by water companies is a big thing—an enormous amount of money is invested. Investments should be protected for longer than 12 years, so is there not a need for the Environment Agency to grant licences for considerably longer than 12 years?

983
There is much else in the Bill which I consider commendable; for instance, the strength of the Drinking Water Inspectorate and flood plans for national security. There are increased powers to deal with pollution from disused mine works. During my chairmanship of a company, I had some experience of that in the former coal field of County Durham, an area which it covered. Having made inquiries this week, I am happy to say that the problem has been resolved, but it is good that a power is given to the coal industry to deal with future problems.
There is greater opportunity for consumer complaints, which is also a good thing. Water companies were always sitting ducks with regard to complaints. I remember receiving a number. It is written into the Bill that frivolous complaints should not be taken seriously. I remember receiving a few frivolous complaints. I once arrived home to find on my front doorstep a glass container with a screw top and a note attached to it. The note had a simple message for me: "Shake it". When I did, I got rather a shock. But I was happy to be assured by the company's chemists that the water had come from a pond and from no area of our supply system.
On another occasion, a gentleman had complained so often that I decided to interview him. I remember asking, "Do you complain about other things besides water?". He gave me a very good answer: he said, "I complain about everything. It's the only way you get anything done". I am therefore pleased to learn that consumer complaints are taken seriously in the Bill, which is right.
Under the Bill, the water industry is to be controlled by five regulators: the board replacing Ofwat concerned with economic and social aspects; both the Environment Agency and English Nature concerned with the protection of the environment; the Drinking Water Inspectorate; and the Health and Safety Commission. Together, those bodies should provide a stable regulatory environment for the industry, but in the past various bodies associated with the industry have lacked co-ordination. In order to improve coordination, there needs to be greater co-operation between the various bodies.
I believe that the Bill will contribute to the further strengthening of our water industry and I hope that it will seek to produce the balanced and sustainable framework which the industry certainly needs.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, who speaks from long experience and, clearly, uses a great amount of common sense and home truths. I, too, must declare an interest as chairman of Vivendi Water UK and a director of one of its subsidiaries, Three Valleys Water. I, too, am conscious that the Bill completes unfinished business. Having been involved in the debates on the Bill which became the Utilities Act 2000, I know that the water aspects of that Bill were withdrawn.
984
The regulatory elements of the Utilities Act 2000 have certain echoes in this Water Bill; for example, the one person regulator. The Director General of Water Services is to be abolished and replaced by a board to be known as the water services regulation authority. The former fashion for one person regulators, which began with the Director General of Fair Trading in 1973 and ran through the specific industry regulators created following privatisation of various utilities in the 1980s, has now been replaced by a fashion for boards, as with Ofgem, Ofcom and the new board of the Office of Fair Trading created by the Enterprise Act 2002.
The merit of knowing precisely where you are when dealing with one individual rather than a committee is being lost. Unless the largely part-time board members are content to confine themselves to broad strategic decisions, we may have slower and less-decisive decision-making. Still, I accept as a reality that hoards are now the vogue and I do not propose to try to swim against the prevailing tide.
However, I ask for flexibility and for boards which are not too large. The minimum membership provided under Schedule 1 is a chairman and two other members. I suggest, if I may bravely do so, to my noble friend the Minister that at least as regards initial appointments the board does not go above a total number of five.
Furthermore, I would like the Government to be flexible and, whatever Her Majesty's Opposition may say, retain flexibility on whether initially one person should be both chairman and chief executive officer, rather than committing themselves to having two separate individuals. I say that especially in relation to water. One does not have to follow fashion because on other boards in other companies it is done in that way. I want to make the serious point that water regulation and the management of the staff of what has been called "Ofwat" will not be as big or complex an operation as is the remit and staffing of, for example. Ofcom under the Telecommunications Bill or the Office of Fair Trading. Moreover, having all senior executives reporting to the head of the organisation, rather than reporting to the No. 2, will assist in recruitment and the cohesion of the organisation. I say to the Benches opposite that it would assist if we believed that corporate governance in private companies, and what is desirable there in relation to the roles of chairman and chief executive, should not necessarily be regarded as appropriate in this regulatory regime.
Like my noble friend Lady Thornton, I welcome the recognition in the Bill of the valuable work of WaterVoice, which represents water consumers, by the clear provision for its statutory independence given under the formal name of the Consumer Council for Water in Clause 34. It is useful that it will be more clearly seen as independent of the authority and as representing existing and future consumers. Although my reading of the Bill has not found a provision, I trust that it will represent commercial and industrial as well as private consumers.

985
I would ask for the council's membership usefully to be larger than that of the authority because it is an advisory rather than an executive body. Perhaps around 10 to 15 members would be appropriate. There should be regional representation; representation of both individual and business consumers; and, in case the thought has not occurred to my noble friend on the Front Bench, it may be useful to consider putting on to the council someone who has held a senior position within the water industry so that discussion can be wide ranging and well informed.
One of the major concerns oft he water companies—it has been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, and others—is the so-called reform of abstraction licensing. Of course reform is needed for various reasons, including those put by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. All licences are to be time-limited. A period of 12 years seems to be the commonly anticipated figure. The chairman of the Environment Agency, from which we shall surely soon be hearing in our debates, will have the opportunity to review the licences regularly in order to meet changing circumstances such as climate change, the changing needs for water and changes in the natural environment. That is fair enough. But the difficulty here, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, pointed out, is that the abstraction of water for public water supply purposes involves the expenditure of considerable capital sums on the construction of major infrastructure works. 'Water companies investing in such infrastructure need some reassurance as regards the long-term security of their investment.
I am not sure that I have fully understood the reasoning, but the Government seem to have changed their mind about allowing a presumption of renewal on the expiry of a licence. Furthermore, compensation rights for non-renewal are reduced. To my mind, ensuring the security of supply of good-quality water to customers is one of the most important responsibilities borne by water companies and of the regulator in his role of overseeing their work. Surely it must be adequately recognised by both the regulatory bodies and by the Bill that security of supply should be in no wise impaired.
Much space in the Bill—by that I mean literally many pages of the legislation—is given over to the potential for competition. Schedule 4 takes up some 36 pages, setting out the detail of licensing provision for new entrants wanting to retail water and compete with the existing water companies, which of course own the infrastructure in their geographical area. Over recent years Ofwat, the regulator, has been keen to enable competition to take place. I suppose he feels left out because the other utilities—such as gas, electricity and so forth—have, despite their complications, been meritorious in this area. But lie has been left out because it is more difficult to introduce competition in the supply of water, although he has sought to enable it through the growth of so-called "inset" appointments in the common belief—it is thought to be encouraged by the Competition Act 1998—that competition could be effectively brought about. In fact, little competition exists.
986
Although, as we have heard, the Bill provides specifically for licensed competition—despite the fact that initially it is to be limited to the supply of commercial customers requiring 50 or more megalitres a year—I do not believe that the Government have any real faith in it. I should be glad to hear whether the Minister does have faith in the future of competition. However, at present only 2,000 customers are included in the initial category. Competition, which is customarily the Government's favourite remedy for any industrial inefficiency or sluggishness, does not seem to be considered to have much scope in the field of water supply. I believe that it is doubtful whether many potential new entrants will come forward because there will not be a great deal: of money in it. Furthermore, perhaps I may say that the water companies appear to be quite adept at preserving their customer base from any form of cross-border raid by other companies or from third parties.
It follows that the economic regulator will want to see the continuation of' a number of companies between which efficiency comparisons can be made in order to settle the periodic price reviews. Comparative competition will still be needed as a substitute for real competition. Unfortunately, this may have the effect of the regulator continuing to oppose any form of restructure through mergers, whatever merits may lie in the resultant economic efficiency and benefit to consumers. Ofwat ought to use a wider rang: of methods in its price-setting process.
Over the past 12 years or so, consumers of water have enjoyed sufficient supplies of high-quality water. Company plans for the future give assurances that supplies will he maintained. That is due to both the water companies and the regulator, but the regulator should not regard the present precise total of water companies as a number written in stone; in other words, the structure of the water industry should not be ossified.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of South East Water for the past five years. I shall certainly not use that interest as a case for special pleading, but I shall use the knowledge I have gained in that role to bring to the attention of the House certain points in the Water Bill that could and should be changed in order to achieve what the Bill sets out to do.
My initial reaction to the legislation is that it is a one-sided attempt to deal with the serious problem of water resources, pollution, flood control, land drainage and other issues. It is long on processes and bureaucratic arrangements, but extremely short on demand management. Indeed, there is not even a nod in that direction.
Those close to the water industry are aware of the inherent problems of water shortages, while those not involved in the industry may find it difficult to believe that we do have serious resource problems. A briefing from the Environment Agency points out that in parts of the South and the South-East of England, there is less water per person than in Ethiopia or the Sudan.

987
As a country, we waste an enormous amount of water. We are unable to comprehend why events such as hosepipe bans or suggestions that we should share baths can arise. Are we not plagued with rain, rain and more rain? It is rather like the line from the Ancient Mariner that I am sure we all learnt at school:
"Water, water, everywhere, Nor any drop to drink".
Because of this perception, little attention is paid to the water supplied to the 50 million or so water users in England. Incidentally, it is useful to note that water usage has doubled over the past 50 years. If we have a shortage of water resources today, it does not take much rocket science to calculate that we shall face far greater shortages if our usage continues to increase. I fear that the Bill reinforces that view because it is short on any attempt to face the reality that something will have to be done about demand management.
As has already been pointed out, the Bill is long and complex and, indeed, has already been subject to delay. It is unlikely that another water Bill will appear within quite a few years and therefore it is extremely important for this Bill to be all-encompassing and for it to deal with those matters which are already causing concern to those close to the industry. More than that, the legislation must take a long-term view.
Water is not a "Top of the Pops" issue for Parliament, as evidenced by the rather sparse attendance at this debate and in the fact that the Bill is likely to be committed to a Grand Committee, which is not exactly a big draw in terms of the numbers who attend the proceedings. The subject is unlikely to receive much by way of parliamentary time in the coming 10 years, which is why it is vital to get it right.
In the spirit of being constructive, I should like to flag up a few issues that should he considered during our deliberations on the Bill. I believe that they are fundamental to the efficient and effective management of that most important of all natural resources, water. Will the Minister consider carefully whether the Bill can be amended—and, indeed, added to—to encompass these concerns?
Surely it is one of the duties of Parliament not only to consider carefully the existing situation but to take heed of strong indications of likely future developments and how they will affect the industry. For example, it is known that there will be further and extensive house building in the south and south-east of England. It is known that these areas have a shortage of water resources. Indeed, the Environment Agency has acknowledged that these areas have a shortage of water, but it has not declared the South and South East to be areas of water scarcity. It is also known that these areas are in peril of serious and frequent flooding.
There are ways of planning for the impact of large increases in house building which could overcome to a very great extent water shortages and flooding concerns. It seems strange to me that water companies are not statutory consultees in the planning process. Why? Is it because some of the solutions are sensitive and have been put by successive governments into the
988
"all too difficult" basket? Compulsory metering is one such solution. I am convinced that that issue must be addressed if we are not to stagger on from crisis to crisis in water resources.
I call attention to this issue at Second Reading because, although it is not mentioned in the Bill, it is fundamental to the effective and efficient management of demand in the industry. The Bill deals with the environmental sustainability impacts; compulsory metering could lessen the negative impact.
I rather like the quote from the document entitled Using Resources Wisely for the Future, which was produced by the then new department, DEFRA, following the last general election. It states:
"Sustainable development means thinking in an integrated way about economic, environmental and social objectives. It matters to people because it is an approach which shows that government is interested in the long term as well as in the short term".
Is that really true? Is it not aspiration rather than reality? I fear it may be.
The Environment Agency accepts that real water savings from metering will come about only when there is a sufficient proportion of homes being metered to be able to introduce innovative tariffs to dissuade high domestic use. Which one of us has not turned on the tap before cleaning one's teeth and left the water running for the full two minutes advocated by the dentist? That is but one small example of how unthinkingly profligate we are with water. The attitude of domestic customers across Europe and in most of the developed world is quite different because they have compulsory metering.
Being brave and dealing with compulsory metering could result in huge benefits to the serious and concerning problem of water resources in the South and South East. I do not know whether it would be possible to amend the Bill so fundamentally to encompass this issue, but we should certainly try.
Another hot potato is the question of debt. One could be excused for thinking that this is irrelevant to the Bill. However, it is relevant to the aim expressed by the right honourable Secretary of State, Mrs Beckett, when she wrote in the foreword to the paper Directing the Flow, produced at the end of last year, that,
"We must embrace wholeheartedly the aims of all three pillars of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—in our approach to water".
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, also referred to this in her very good introduction of the Bill.
The ever-increasing level of customer debt is compromising the economic future of the industry. By way of brief explanation for those not involved in the water industry, the customer debt issue relates to the fact that, although the supply of water is a statutory obligation on the industry, the payment of debt for water used is not a legal obligation on the customer. Water companies have no sanctions against long-term defaulters; they have to continue to supply water.
That fact is now very well known indeed among reluctant payers. I am told that, when people get into debt, the citizen's advice bureau has a schedule of payments that must be made, and water bills come well

989
down the list—even after, would you believe, catalogue payments for goods ordered on hire purchase and satellite TV monthly subscriptions. Bad debt is a huge concern within the industry. At the last count it was running at £717 million. The total has risen 10 per cent since the Water Act banned the use of disconnection for non-payment and subsequently when budget payment devices were outlawed.
The snowball effect of this in terms of reluctance by companies to invest is understandable. Those in the industry—working together—have come up with innovative suggestions to tackle this problem, and it is up to the Government to grasp the nettle and to consider statutory measures to reduce this unacceptable level of debt. Is it right that payers should subsidise those who choose not to pay? What price economic and social sustainability?
Investment is essential in every industry; it is probably even more essential in the water industry. Your Lordships would be astonished at the average age of the assets of the industry, mainly in pipes. Victorian pipework was very good and has lasted well over 100 years in some cases—but would you really want to rely on it forever, particularly bearing in mind the absolutely essential nature of water for each and every one of us?
The Bill compounds the felony of discouraging investment. Being charitable, it is probably yet another example of the law of unintended consequences coming into play. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the new regime for extraction licences proposed in the Bill—an issue which has been referred to already—investment decisions within the water companies are likely to be subjected to ever more intense and continuing examination because the payback period linked to the length of the licence could be too short. My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth referred to this issue in his illuminating contribution to the debate.
Twelve years sounds a long time, but it is not. Those who have knowledge of other statutory areas—particularly those involving waste collection and street cleaning—will know that the norm has been to allow contracts of 25 years in length because of the high level of investment. I cannot for one moment consider that the level of investment for rubbish collection and street cleaning is anything like that needed for the water companies to reduce the age of the assets, to ensure a continuous flow of clean water and to reduce leakages. I intend to return to this issue in Committee. However, it would be good if the Minister could have a re-think before then.
I turn now to proposals that are in the Bill. Knowing that the Bill will be subjected to detailed scrutiny in Committee, I wish to make only a general point at this stage. Part 2 of the Bill appears cumbersome, overly bureaucratic and potentially very costly. A new structure will be introduced to regulate the industry; the Environment Agency will be given new and greater powers; and the Secretary of State at the DTI will be given new powers to determine standards of performance for the water industry. That is plain
990
wrong because the basis of utility regulation is that it is independent of short-term political pressures and the regulator works only according to duties contained in primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Has anyone given thought to the cost of all this? I am not thinking about the cost of the new staff, new offices, new overheads, training expenses and the time that the regulatory bodies will take to introduce all of that; I am thinking of the cost increases to be born by the industry as a result of this bureaucratic structure and, by extension, to be born by the consumer. More and more people will be beavering away producing information which probably no one will read. The people thus engaged will not be doing much to provide a better service to customers or, for example, to deal with leaks from ever ageing assets. All this frenetic activity will give employment to many, but for what benefit?
The water industry is already highly regulated. There are whole departments in the water companies whose sole job is to provide information to regulators. There are currently three regulators but the number is to be increased. Ofwat collects more information than is seen in any other regulated industry. WaterVoice, the consumer wing of Ofwat—which is to be replaced—has a generally good relationship with the water companies. It asks for a great deal of information, which is given on an ad hoc basis; but that will be the subject of regulation when the new consumer council is introduced. The council will have a statutory right to demand and publish great swathes of data.
I feel obliged to ask three questions. Do we need a fourth regulator? What benefit will that be to customers who already have access to an enormous amount of data from Ofwat? What about commercial confidentiality? Of course we have to have regulations—but, please, not so much and not forever growing like Topsy.
Wearing my business and commercial hat, I am appalled by the ever-increasing cost of bureaucracy, form-tilling and box-ticking—and that is true not only of the water industry. No wonder we as a nation are worried about falling behind in the productivity stakes. We need to devote more of our energies to giving service to customers, developing new ways of doing things and eliminating waste—not to form-filling and box-ticking.
The proposals in the Bill concerning the new structure of the regulators have one serious flaw. It is so serious that I believe it must simply have escaped notice. The flaw is that there is no provision/ requirement for all the regulators to talk to each other. They almost certainly will; but surely this requirement should be on the face of the Bill. There should be a statutory requirement that they communicate on a regular basis.
The phrase "joined-up government" is a mantra for this Government. Let us now see action rather than hear continuous repetition.

991
I look forward to the Minister's comments, and I particularly look forward to trying to make the Bill a better one through our deliberations in Committee.
5.1 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I have pestered governments for this Bill for over 10 years. I welcome its introduction at this time. Your Lordships will be able to judge my pleasure when I declare my interests as vice-president of the RSPB, president of a county wildlife trust and chief executive of the Environment Agency. I assure noble Lords that in that last capacity I have read and inwardly digested the Addison rules.
Rising water demands are with us. They have increased by 40 per cent since the 1970s. Water is an increasingly scarce resource, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, indicated, in the South and the South-East of England particularly. Even in an average year, less water is available per person across England and Wales than in Spain; and in the future we shall see the increasing impact of climate change.
Water is necessary for a whole range of requirements: homes and gardens, industry, water-based recreation, especially for agriculture and also for wildlife. Many of these needs are in competition with each other. The Bill provides a more flexible framework for the sustained balancing of these competing needs for the greater public good.
Noble Lords may remember the water summit that took place in 1997. It was a landmark in environment and water policy. It signalled a welcome and effective commitment by the new Government to the sustainable management of water resources. This Bill takes forward that commitment.
I particularly welcome three groups of provisions: first, those that relate to a more effective regulatory system. The Bill will see the deregulation of 25,000 small, mainly agricultural abstractions. That represents almost half of all the abstraction licences that currently exist in this country; and there are provisions for the easier transfer of licences.
The Bill introduces regulation for the first time in regard to water abstractions, some of them substantial, which are currently not required to have licences, such as the trickle irrigation of crops and the dewatering of quarries and mines. I recognise the anxiety of those in the farming community whose livelihoods depend on water. I believe that the Bill provides sufficient transitional safeguards. Although agricultural abstractions may represent only a small percentage of the total volume of water abstracted, those abstractions are often in areas of high water stress and take place in summer, when there is lower water availability.
I welcome the Bill's provisions for more efficient and sustainable management of water resources. The trading of licences will encourage efficiency of water use. The time limitation of licences and the ability to revoke damaging abstractions without prohibitive compensation after 2012 are welcome provisions. I
992
believe that there are appropriate safeguards to ensure that users have plenty of time—at least six years' notice—to adjust to any changes as part of their business cycle. There will be a presumption of renewal.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, expressed concern about investment by water companies in long-term assets and not being able to gain the benefit of that investment. He will be well aware from his past experience of the provisions that operate for other water company assets—for example sewage works. These are long-term investments, but the discharge consents are reviewed every four years —and most of my friends who are in water company management do not lie awake worrying about this matter but are quite relaxed about it. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that there are ways in which long-term assets and regular review can be combined. I hope that responsible abstractors will recognise the importance of time limits to allow for fair reviews of potentially damaging abstractions.
But 90 per cent of licences are currently permanent, and even the provisions for review and revocation in the Bill are all too slow. The Bill would be improved if it enabled a significant conversion of permanent licences quicker than 2012. If that cannot be achieved, not only shall we feel the hot hand of the Water Framework Directive on our collars, but I suspect that we shall not be able to ensure that the highest priority users have an adequate water supply.
The Bill introduces improved water resource planning arrangements. It finally brings into statute the requirement for water companies to have resources and drought plans. Noble Lords may recall that these sprang from the heady days when customers under one water company in the North were having to use standpipes and the chairman of the company—I shall not speak its name for fear of shaming it—was found sneaking across the Border to have a bath in another water company area. The water resources and drought plans will, I hope, consign such occurrences to history as they are brought into statute.
Water is not solely a good thing and scarce—it can be a bad thing and too plentiful at times of flood. I found it slightly bizarre, when standing up to the waist in ice cold water during the New Year floods, to be contemplating a Bill on scarce water resources and drought plans! But the Bill rightly contains provisions for improving flood defence arrangements. The increase in extreme weather events and rising sea levels mean an increase in flood risk. The damage and distress that we saw in 1998, during the severe floods of 2000 and in the floods at the start of this year are all too real.
I welcome the Bill's provisions for the simplification—perhaps I should call it "streamlining" as we are into puns—of the flood defence arrangements. But the public are very unclear as to who is responsible for what in flood defence, and who pays for what. The Bill helps to clarify those responsibilities by reducing a layer of flood defence committees. That will enable more efficient decision-making, but it will continue to be local. The Bill also

993
provides simplification of the currently over-complex funding arrangements. They are so arcane that I am not surprised that the public are confused.
All in all, this is a good Bill. But it could be a great Bill with some adjustments. I have alluded to the need for a faster pace on time-limited licences.
The Bill contains an anomaly. Some navigation authority reservoirs would still remain outside the regulatory and management framework. That is a challenge to the principle of consistency. All significant abstractions should be licensed. This means that about 40 per cent of British waterway reservoirs, for example, could impact on water courses without statutory protection for the environment or for other abstractors.
As many speakers have said, the proposal for a new water consumer council is welcome. But I, too, would like to quote the public research indicating that water customers are not interested merely in social issues and issues of price, and that these should not be the sole matters with which the new consumer council for water is tasked. Water customers also value the environment. As the Minister will recall, I have, in the past, occasionally with some success, tried to insert a sustainable development duty in every public body that passed by in your Lordships' House. We managed to do it in the case of regional development agencies and in the National Assembly for Wales, although I failed dismally in the Scotland Bill. We now have a water regulator that will have a sustainable development duty, so why should the consumer council for water not also have that duty? It would be a nice match and reflect the fact that consumers are interested in the environment.
There is a strange silence in the Bill. The Government's strategy Taking Water Responsibly mentioned a duty for all licensed abstractors to use water efficiently. That is not in the Bill due, I understand, to legal difficulties, but it would be useful to explore that further. It would be an important signal to all abstractors to address some of the issues that have been outlined today.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, and the Minister for bringing the Bill forward. It is important for all water users. I have two stark illustrations of the need to get a grip on these issues. First, nearly 400 of our river or wetland wildlife sites designated by law as nationally or internationally important are currently threatened by abstraction, so there is a real need to bring abstractions into a logical framework. Secondly, we do not want to return to the droughts of 1989 and 1995. I think we are probably due one quite soon, if the point needs to be underlined.
The Bill is vital. It will balance the needs of households, businesses, agriculture, wildlife and the environment.
5.12 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for the clear way in which she introduced the Bill. Up to a certain point there seemed to be remarkable consensus that the Bill was largely
994
uncontentious and would enhance the successes that have occurred since water privatisation. But my noble friend Lady O'Cathain seems to have put the kibosh on that in an extremely interesting and illuminating speech. Clearly the issues are more complex than people like myself had realised.
As a general point, looking at the figures, it seems that the quality of water in this country has improved quite substantially. The water companies, English Nature, the Environment Agency and everyone involved should take credit for that. I was a little surprised at the rather disparaging remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Nitrate concentrations remain high in certain rivers, although I appreciate that the creation of nitrate-vulnerable zones should help to address the problem.
Despite improvements in water quality, many of us remain concerned about the lack of what I might describe as co-ordinated environmental management of river systems. I join my noble friend Lady Byford in asking the Minister why the Water Framework Directive's objectives have not been incorporated into the Bill when it seems logical to do so.
I particularly welcome the introduction of river basin management plans, as that should lead to much needed sustainable management of the whole river system. I speak with some experience, as I am involved in such a scheme on the River Ure in north Yorkshire. It is an entirely voluntary scheme. It involves representatives from all the interested groups within the catchment area and is co-ordinated through the Environment Agency. We originally formed it because a number of us were concerned at the high levels of summer water extraction undertaken by Yorkshire Water, which we felt was having an adverse effect on the environmental integrity of the river. It has been partially successful, with all parties coming together and discussing the problems. We have just engaged a consultant to carry out a full audit of the species in the river, which I believe should have been done a long time ago. But progress has been slow. We have failed to secure the funding for a project officer, which is an essential part of the operation. So the Water Framework Directive is sadly missing from the Bill.
It is clear that the use of water can no longer be taken for granted. Long-term management has become a fundamental requirement, whether it be for consumer use, industry, agriculture, the environment or recreation.
Without wishing to undermine the enormous importance of other clauses of the Bill, I should like to concentrate most of my remarks on the clauses relating to abstraction licences and the need to ensure that they will be applied in an even-handed way. I declare an interest as a landowner, but water abstraction does riot involve me directly.
Agriculture has an over-riding dependence on water and it is therefore essential that the industry is treated fairly. It is interesting to note, however, that it only accounts for less than 2 per cent of water abstraction in the United Kingdom. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that its effect on water

995
pollution can be considerable. That is why there have been so many regulations of late, many of which have cost the industry a considerable amount of money.
I welcome the concession in Clause 6 which removes the need for those who abstract less than 20 cubic metres of water per day from having to obtain a licence. Anything that reduces red tape these days is only to be welcomed.
I fully acknowledge that abstraction can no longer be seen as an automatic right and that a more coordinated system needs to be put in place. To this end, the power in the Bill for the Environment Agency to enter into water resource management schemes with abstractors seems eminently desirable. However, as my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth pointed out, it is important to appreciate that many businesses, including agriculture, have invested, sometimes heavily, in abstraction systems and other capital equipment dependent on the licence and it is only reasonable that compensation should be given if the Environment Agency wishes to terminate or alter a licence.
The Government have chosen 2012 as the year when compensation will cease in the event of an abstraction licence being revoked or altered, although this will happen only when it is deemed that serious environmental damage is taking place. I know that certain conservation bodies are unhappy with this, but I do hope, for the reasons I have given, that the Minister will be robust in resisting any reduction in this timeframe. As I understand it, if someone applies for an abstraction licence after the Bill is enacted, the Environment Agency will issue only fixed-term licences. I believe that that is perfectly reasonable, but what happens if the agency decides during the course of that licence that sufficient environmental damage is being caused to warrant that licence to be revoked or altered? In those circumstances, will the abstractor with the licence receive compensation? If the answer is yes, I pose what I can only describe as the philosophical question—one of principle, I suppose: what is the difference between compensation taking place before 2012 and not taking place after 2012?
I take this opportunity to suggest that it would probably be more equitable for the Environment Agency to issue licences to existing licence holders rather than new ones—assuming, of course, that there was an over-demand for water—as the existing operators will almost certainly have already invested in capital equipment and will be an up and running business.
I have two further quick points on that. "Causing serious environmental damage" is an arbitrary term. It will need further explanation from the Government. Will the Minister confirm whether there is an appeal system against the turning down of an abstraction licence?
The noble Baroness referred in her opening remarks to trickle irrigation, which is efficient and effective and is an important part of the horticultural business. The industry is of significant importance in production and
996
employment, which is often in rural areas. Many such businesses are long-established and fully invested and are deeply concerned at the prospect of having to apply for a licence that could be revoked or altered in such a way as to undermine their business seriously. Because they have not had to have licences before, no compensation will be paid. I am not suggesting that such operators should be treated favourably. I am simply asking the Government and the Environment Agency to appreciate that they are coming into the licensing arena for the first time with an up and running business. That must be taken into account.
I also hope that there will be further discussions between DEFRA, English Nature and those who depend on trickle irrigation to try to establish a working practice. I appreciate that the Bill helps in that process, but there is a real feeling of concern. I urge the noble Lord to talk seriously to the industry while the Bill is going through your Lordships' House.
On a general note, it is worth remembering that under the Environment Act 1995, the Environment Agency has an obligation to have regard to the economic and social wellbeing of local communities in rural areas. I am sure that is ingrained on the noble Baroness's heart. I imagine that responsibility will go some way towards allaying my fears. However, when considering the effects of the cessation or alteration of an abstraction licence it is also important for the agency to consider the specific level of investment in plant and machinery that an operator has undertaken.
Further considerable care needs to be given to ensuring that operators do not close down when the consequences would be an increase in imported products, with obvious adverse effects on employment and the balance of payments and an increase in transport, which inevitably means an increase in pollution. We need to balance the issues very carefully. The Countryside Agency is working hard to encourage locally produced goods. It would be a pity if that determination was undermined by the over-zealous approach of the Environment Agency.
One or two other issues will have to be looked at in more detail later during the progress of the Bill, including the compensation of licences in Clause 25 and the need to ensure that the abolition of local flood defence committees does not result in local knowledge being removed from the regional committees. That point was well made by my noble friend Lady Byford. There is also the thorny question of liability and any claims that might arise out of damage caused by water abstraction. There is also the question of reservoirs.
I broadly welcome this long-awaited Bill. It deserves a more harmonious passage through your Lordships' House than some of the more recent Bills that have emanated from DEFRA.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak on the Bill. This morning we had the WET Bill, this afternoon we have the Water Bill and all we are missing is the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, to have the High Hedges Bill this evening, but perhaps that would be a step too far.

997
I appear to be the only person here who was present for the passage of the Water Act 1989, which privatised the industry. I remind any who may think that this is a lengthy and complex Bill that 532 amendments were tabled to the 1989 Bill. I sat in Committee for 205 hours and only two amendments were accepted throughout that time. The Act took over £25 billion of assets and valued them at £7 billion. I tabled an amendment to that Bill that might interest the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. I proposed not-for-profit companies as an alternative to privatisation. The amendment was rejected out of hand by the Secretary of State at the time. I find that ironic, as he was the right honourable Member for Folkestone, and I know well his roots.
Glas Cymru, which my noble friend Lady Miller mentioned, is a not-for-profit company that benefits the environment and consumers by reinvesting its surpluses. It was put together about two and a half years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and many other talented people to ensure that water supplies in Wales were rescued from the Americans. They raised £2 billion of corporate bonds in the City, creating the holding company Glas Cymru, which means blue Wales—or green Wales, depending on what part of Wales you come from. Welsh Water is the statutory undertaking and is the licence holder for the distribution of water throughout Wales.
In the coming year, consumers in Wales will have a £10 cut in their water bills. That is a start, because water has been more expensive in Wales than almost anywhere else. That extraordinary situation is brought about by the fact that we have difficult geography and lots of water pipes that are very expensive to maintain. As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, some of them are very old.
I believe that the infant success of Glas Cymru will prove that it is possible to have a not-for-profit company delivering very well on the environment. on sustainability and for community and social purposes, which I think is the intention of the Bill, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in her excellent opening speech. It is a perfect fit. It will be interesting to see how matters develop.
I do not want to dwell on the speeches that have been made. Part 1 deals with abstraction and impounding, Part 2 deals with regulatory arrangements and Part 3, although headed "Miscellaneous" deals with the Drinking Water Inspectorate—which I found to be a very important body in my work in another place—and the whole consideration of drought, drainage, reservoirs, discharges and water mains.
I thank the Government for including the devolution aspect. The Bill contains powers for the National Assembly for Wales. That is important, because those of us from Wales remember that water is sometimes an explosive subject. Thank goodness that has not been the case for the past 20 years. If the Bill is pursued sensitively, I do not believe that the subject will be explosive in the next 20 years either.
998
I am interested in a few matters not yet mentioned. I declare an interest as a fisherman with a very small fishing interest on the River Usk. Compensatory river flow is extremely important to sustain the life of rivers—not only the fish, but otters, insects and everything else. The environment and ecology will not function properly unless there is a decent amount of water coming down. Regulation is clearly necessary for that. In very dry years, it is very difficult when the compensatory flow is cut. The rivers become very low and ecologically unsustainable. It is a difficult situation which must be put right.
I was very impressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the chief executive of the Environment Agency. I am concerned about one issue in particular. Some of the Bill's provisions will remove functions from local control. The question of democratic accountability is extremely important. In that context, however, I welcome the devolution of some aspects to the National Assembly for Wales. Nevertheless, appointees control some aspects of the Environment Agency. In particular, I foresee that the reorganisation of local flood defence committees will lessen democratic accountability. I believe that there can be democratic accountability and a democratic input into river basin management while maintaining local flood defence committees and a regional input. Such an arrangement would be not bureaucratic but entirely logical. As my noble friend Lady Miller said, and as the daily local weather forecast shows, rainfall is a regional phenomenon.
Other issues such as new and expanded reservoirs concern Wales in particular. The following may not mean much to noble Lords, but it would mean a lot to an audience in Wales. Trewern, near Bala, was essentially drowned so that water resources could be provided for Liverpool. In my former constituency, Brecon and Radnorshire, 12 reservoirs serve many different communities. Frankly, we do want any more of our communities to be flooded—thank you very much. I should not expect this Government even to consider doing so.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned the huge demand problem particularly in the South East. I do not want compulsory metering for the whole of the United Kingdom. I think that she advocated compulsory metering only in the South East, and I can understand the reasons for that argument. However, compulsory metering could not be applied in the areas which I represented. Other methods are preferable when the local infrastructure is problematic.
I remember it being said during passage of the Water Bill that up to 40 per cent of all water is lost because of leakage. Some progress has been made. Nevertheless, that is an extraordinary waste of a most valuable resource. Speakers have pointed out today that less water is available in South East England than in Spain. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that, even now, up to 25 per cent of water, and perhaps as much as 30 per cent, is lost through leakage. It is a profligate waste of an essential resource.

999
I apologise for not mentioning individual contributors; I am just picking one or two points that I think are important. The important issue of flow control has been mentioned. I am more familiar with the demand end of the issue than the supply end. Indeed, I am very familiar with the Rivers Severn and Wye. People do not understand why, when the reservoirs are full and heavy rain—I cannot use the words I had in mind—is forecast, there is still flooding particularly in the Midlands, the Wye Valley and Hereford. There seems to be no plan to release water from reservoirs before heavy rain. I had to deal with 10 residents of Builth Wells who were flooded out of their houses for three consecutive years and subsequently became uninsurable. It is a scandal that could be overcome by proper co-ordination, some of which is provided by the Bill.
If there is better control, we will not have so much flooding in the Midlands and particularly in the West Midlands. The Bill needs to address that type of issue. It is a vast Bill, though not nearly as large as the water privatisation Bill. I am sure that we will have an interesting time considering it. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I think that the Government will be more sympathetic than the then government were when we considered the water privatisation Bill.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in that I am an abstraction licence holder. It is worth explaining how that came about as it colours my remarks and my approach to the Bill.
Back in the early 1960s I perceived a need to irrigate my farm. I farm in north Essex where the average annual rainfall up until the year 2000 was between 18 and 19 inches. It is a well-known dry area. My farm is not in the driest part of Essex but Essex is certainly among the driest areas of the country. My farm has no water course and no known subterranean water. However, I need water. I called in some experts to address the question of how to supply that water. They told me that the farm had plenty of water and that all they had to do was to impound the winter flow.
As I say, the farm does not have a water course, but it does have a ditch. Normally the ditch has a flow for about four months of the year but for eight months of the year there is no flow. I looked into the matter further and had built at that time an impounding reservoir, banked on all four sides and filled exclusively with water that runs off the farm's ditches although the water passes through some other land on the farm. We store over 700 inches of water. I apologise that I have not caught up with megalitres and cubic metres. However, if I say that an acre inch of water is 22,000 gallons, perhaps that will help those who want to convert my figures.
In an ordinary winter we probably have enough water running off the farm to fill two more such reservoirs. In the past three years I believe that I could have flooded the farm completely to a depth of some
1000
feet. The Bill was prepared at the end of a dry period and the attitude adopted within it is influenced by drought. Also at the present time people are concerned about another matter.
My experience colours my attitude. We are not particularly short of water in this country but we are particularly short of management of our water. As regards the management of our water, I found it difficult to divine the thinking behind the Bill and how it will work. That is a real problem. I refer to the timing of the Bill and the difference between a drought approach and a flood approach.
Interestingly, in the autumn of 2001 a large number of houses in Essex were flooded. That was a one in 800-year event. Some extraordinary weather patterns have occurred but I say seriously that a deep philosophical problem arises with regard to how one deals with a one in 800-year event. How does one protect oneself against such an event? Neither governments nor institutions last that long. There are more than 30 generations of people in 800 years. Yet we have to deal with these issues. It is a great credit to the insurance industry that it does what it can—and does it very well—to cover such out of the ordinary losses. I hope that the insurance industry will be able to run a profitable business as a result of the enhanced premiums that it will levy in the future. There is a risk, of course. A one in 800-year event can happen in two consecutive years, even if it does not recur in the next 1,500 years.
I refer to the regional flood defence committees that are to be set up under the Bill. However, the problems of flooding are not regional but local and concern particular catchment areas. I believe that there is a potential problem with the Bill in that moving to a regional approach may conceivably be all right from an investment point of view but we need to ensure that the local interest is not lost. As I say, the problems of flooding are often very localised. They relate to particular catchment areas rather than to a whole catchment area. We need to consider that.
The problems of dealing with a surplus and a shortage of water have the same solution. It comes in the creation of far more reservoirs, which we fill in times of surplus flow and diminish in times of low flow in the summer. One cannot wholly prevent flooding by doing that, but one can go a very long way towards it. The idea of sitting on reservoirs that are full for a whole season because the rain keeps falling does not strike me as particularly good management if—perhaps there should be an obligation for this—the water companies are properly involved in flood control, as well as in water resource provision.
I shall mention a matter on the business of flood control that is not in the Bill, although it would be nice if it could be brought into it. I was recently in the United States, and happened to go to Phoenix at the commencement of the storm that caused so much trouble in the east of the United States. Phoenix is in Arizona. Normally, one would think it were a desert. About two days after my arrival—I took complete responsibility for it, of course, as they were glad to

1001
have it—Phoenix had more rain in a day than it would expect in a year. Flash flooding was the order of the day, but I saw at least one artificial flood plain in operation. Inevitably for the United States, it was a golf course but, the morning after that rain, it was a lake. As a result, several hundred houses were not flooded. We need to think creatively about our approach to the problem.
Surface reservoirs could be impounding reservoirs like mine. They could be great reservoirs, such as are provided in the mountains of Wales or Hanningfield in Essex. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield, who is not present, takes his name not from the reservoir but from the village, as does the reservoir. Another example is what I want to call Grafham Water, but my noble friend Lady Byford might want to call Rutland Water. If we had impounded surplus flow in those reservoirs and used that water in the summer, we could reduce peak flows in the winter and do much to reduce flooding. I accept that we cannot prevent it, mother nature being what she is, but we can manage our resources much better than we do.
We have been blessed with a benign climate in this country. Much has been made of our having less water than Ethiopia or possibly parts of Spain. However, we do not have those countries' evaporation problems, which makes a huge difference.
A point that flows from that—it has already been made by my noble friends Lord Elliott of Morpeth and Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie —is that if we are to have such major constructions, especially in terms of water services, a 12-year abstraction licence is nonsense. The reservoirs that supply the Midlands, Manchester and Birmingham from Wales are more than a century old. I am not quite sure when they were constructed. One of the Essex reservoirs that do so much to relieve the problems in the South East is nearly 40 years old, and the other is 70 or 80 years old.
One cannot get the construction necessary for us to manage our water resources properly on the back of a 12-year abstraction licence, renewable for 12 more. That is simply not realistic. The water industry has many problems, as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain explained, such as over-investment and trying to get a return. If we expect it to work on that system without the prospect of automatic renewal, the industry 'will collapse.
The subject becomes even more important when we consider the South East in the context of the Government's proposals for major development in the Thames Gateway, the M11 corridor and so on. We are talking about a quarter of a million houses and a huge enhancement in population. Those major developments will not be possible without major investment in water infrastructure.
The other point is that the provision of that water infrastructure will take time. This does not concern only reservoirs but river basin transfer schemes. We already have a scheme from the Ely Ouse into Essex. There is a scheme under discussion to move water from the Trent to the Ouse so that it can be moved from the
1002
Ouse to Essex. Those things will not happen without immense confidence in the future. We need to be aware of that background when we consider the Bill.
I turn to what I call the "London paradox". I find the London situation strange. London is well supplied with water from the south, west and north —the North Sea is to the east. That arose historically because London used to have intensive development. There was much industry and commerce in London. As the ground became polluted the water sources became polluted. The first reaction of the water supply companies was to look further out for new and clean supplies. That is as may be and has been done successfully.
However, we should recognise that London's water is very well used indeed, wherever it comes from. The best way to describe it is that it is used at least five or six times between Teddington Weir and the Beckton outflow, and is cleaned up each time. Even through the drought period through which we have just gone, the water table under London was rising between one and two metres per year. There is no shortage of water in London; there is plenty. It is beginning to threaten the lower levels of the deep underground railways and the lower basements of tall buildings which have gone down as well as up. There is a real problem.
There is talk of extracting the water, putting it through fountains and letting it run into the river. However, there is not talk of Using it because it is polluted by heavy metal. I cannot help but wonder about the wisdom of pouring water polluted by heavy metal into the Thames estuary, where it can be concentrated in fish, shellfish and seaweed, which are perhaps brought back in for us to eat.
In any event, I cannot help wondering—I do not know the answer—why we cannot clean heavy metals out of water the way we seem to be able to clean organic pollution out of water. If we did that, perhaps we would not have the shortage of water in the South East that we appear to have.
There is much in a practical sense to deal with, which cannot be put on the face of the Bill. The question is how the Bill will impact on those needs and how to tackle those problems. Trying to determine that is obscure. I have read many briefing papers. The Bill is plainer than it was. However, it seems to me that we have to ensure that in practical terms it focuses on those issues. If it does not we might as well not pass it through this place.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this well-informed debate in which many aspects of water management have been covered. It is true that this is a substantive Bill. However, as a number of noble Lords have said, it is also true that aspects of water management are not and, indeed, cannot be covered by the Bill. A number of comments by noble Lords were on !natters which are not covered by the Bill, which they perhaps think should be in the Bill but are more particularly the context for the Bill. For example, the noble Baroness,

1003
Lady Miller, mentioned that there are many aspects of Directing the Flow which are not reflected in the Bill. Some legislative bases for following those through already exist and others do not require legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, was concerned about the lack of measures relating to demand management. Again, those are wider issues than abstraction and licensing. But they are—and must be—part of overall water strategy.
The issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others in relation to huge planning problems, in particular in the South East, require major efforts of long-term strategic planning by the water authorities and the planning authorities in the approach to constructing and planning consent. They are part of the context in which the Bill operates but they are not issues that require the kind of legislation that it puts forward. Nevertheless, they are part of the overall context in which the Bill is being produced. They underline the vital importance of having a consistent, new and long-term approach to the way in which we deal with water in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that she did not find the Bill exciting but that she found the issue exciting. I thought that the debate was exciting. As we go through the Bill, which is quite hefty—it is not as hefty as the privatisation Bill, but it has 202 pages—I am sure that we shall find plenty to talk about in relation to what is in it. We also need to bear in mind the other issues behind those in which it intervenes in the whole process of water management. Other areas are partly touched on, such as flood and water resources. It covers the structure of flood committees, but the totality of flood management is already dealt with under existing powers and planning arrangements.
Such issues as how water companies manage leakage—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred—are already covered by existing legislative requirements. Some progress has been made, but more is still to be made. The major basis for those issues already exists in the 1991 Act.
Another aspect was addressed, as to what is not in the Bill but is nevertheless part of the context of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Farrington said at the beginning that the Bill is moving in parallel with the Water Framework Directive. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and other noble Lords—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for example—said that more of the Water Framework Directive should be on the face of the Bill.
It has never been intended that the framework directive, as such, would be incorporated in the Bill. The Bill can help to deliver some elements of the directive's objectives, but most of the regulation under the framework directive is specific and will be transposed in the normal way that European directives are. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggested there are some limitations on the role of the House in that respect. But that is the way we have transposed all such
1004
directives under the European Communities Act. We do not need to incorporate them on the face of primary legislation.
Having dealt with what is not in the Bill, but which is, nevertheless, interesting and important and part of the background, I shall try to deal with one or two of the issues that are. First, on the extraction licences in one form or another, there was objection from a number of noble Lords—from the noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Dixon-Smith—to the intention to time limit all licences and that the normal period would be 12 years.
The Bill changes the option for the Environment Agency to issue new licences into an obligation. Therefore, in the long-term future all new licences will be time limited. That fits in with the Environment Agency's approach to strategic planning.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred to the need to approach the planning of water resources on the basis of catchment areas. We are developing management abstraction schemes on strategies across different catchment areas in England and Wales. That requires an ability to alter the terms of licences. Nevertheless, there is a need to establish a relationship with the abstractor so that the conditions can be attached in order to meet the objectives of those strategies.
There are concerns that the 12-year strategy—although the Environment Agency can issue licences for longer periods; 12 years is not a restriction written into the Bill—and limiting abstraction licences may deter long-term investment. But there are significant elements of uncertainty under the current licensing system, especially environmental considerations, which, by and large, were not taken into account when the original permanent licences were instituted. However, the Environment Agency has powers and will be reviewing permanent licences as part of the process. In some ways, greater certainty will be provided under the conditions issued under future time-limited licences than under current permanent licences.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked about presumption of renewal of licences. There is still a presumption behind the scheme that licences would be renewed in normal circumstances. To answer another of his questions—on appeal before revocation of a licence—one can appeal to the Secretary of State about both the revocation and conditions of the licence. So there are built-in safeguards to the new system.
In a sense, the opposite argument was made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who suggested that we should have a relatively short period of licensing. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, looked forward to a more rapid conversion of permanent to time-limited licences—which has advantage to companies taking out abstraction licences, as well as to the Environment Agency in its duties to pursue a long-term strategy directly linked to the conditions of the licences. So we shall consider conversion of some existing licences into time-limited licences, with conditions appropriate to modern water management requirements.

1005
On the detail of who will be covered by the new abstraction licensing system, I am glad that several noble Lords welcome the exclusion of small user-abstractors now covered by the licensing system. Of those 20,000, a significant proportion will be farmers, who will welcome that exclusion. The main concern about extension of coverage relates to trickle irrigation. I understand the anxieties of the horticulture, potato and other industries about the implications, but the whole system concerns the total quantum of water, rather than how it is used.
Although trickle irrigation can be a marvellously effective and efficient use of water, it is not necessarily so in and of itself. It depends how effectively the extractor uses the system. It is therefore important that such users are brought under the regime. However, the Government are concerned that their being brought under the licensing regime is done in such a way as does not threaten or impose excessive cost on their business of horticulture, which, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, rightly said, is important for rural development. As he said, it is important to talk those industries through the process as we bring them into the system.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the question of revocation of licences after four years of non-use. I understand why the move from seven to four years may be inappropriate in certain circumstances. The Bill simply provides a power where there is no good reason for not using the system for four years. Where a crop rotation system or other rational reason for not using the abstraction licence exists, that will clearly be a strong argument against revoking the licence. But there will be situations in which failure to use the abstraction licence, given the need to manage the total system. would be grounds for removing the system after four years.
Compensation will end only in cases where a permanent licence is revoked because an obstruction causes serious environmental damage. It will remain payable when a time-limited licence is revoked. There must be serious environmental damage as opposed to a relatively minor problem with the licence; therefore, there is a significantly reduced likelihood that licences will be subject to such revocation. It is important that, throughout the process, the Environment Agency talks to any holder of a licence that is in danger of being revoked.
Noble Lords raised issues other than the licensing system, such as the nature of the new regulatory authority. My noble friend Lord Borrie was concerned that the board that replaces the individual regulator should be kept relatively small. I agree, particularly in the context of the water sector. The noble Lord also said that the board should have clear responsibilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was worried that, because the board of regulators would be appointed by the Government, it could be subject to political pressure. The individual regulator is appointed by the Government at present. The regulator and the regulatory system have proved distinctly independent from the Government over the past few years, which is important. We wish the new system to maintain that independence.
1006
Concern was expressed about the fact that the Environment Agency is to be the regulator under the Reservoirs Act 1975. Noble Lords were also concerned about other aspects of the removal of what is seen as local control into a national system. Across England and Wales there must be consistency of approach in such important issues as managing the overall system and public safety. It will also be important to have a consistent line of communication with local authorities.
Noble Lords raised several points about the consumer council for water. It will be given additional powers, which was generally welcomed. But my noble friend Lady Thornton was concerned about the council's access to certain information. It is important that the council acquires adequate information. But it is a different situation from that of the competitive sector, where competition occurs at the top end of the market—in supplies to large users. The balance of power and the role of a consumer representative are different in the case of a monopoly supplier providing for a vast range of domestic and small business use. Concern was expressed about the restriction of access to information from the Consumers' Association referred to by my noble friend. Under the Bill, the consumer council for water will have virtually the same access to information as Energywatch has under the energy legislation. There is no distinction.
On competition, the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, was concerned that if we creamed off the large users of water, everyone else's bills would increase. Normally, competition leads to an overall price reduction; but we need to be wary of that immediate effect. Therefore, the director-general of Ofwat and the new body must take into account their duties to all customers rather than simply considering competition to supply larger customers. So, in making a decision to allow access to competition, he, and subsequently the new body, will have to take into account its knock-on effect on all customers, not simply on the supply to customers above 50—like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I cannot remember what the measure of quantum is—megalitres, I think it is. That represents only about 2,000 companies and users. Their interests as big users are important, and competition can operate easily in that context. However, it is also important to man age the knock-on effect on other consumers.
My noble friend Lord Borrie raised an issue that nobody else raised—he decided to knock it down anyway—about whether we had a combined or separate chairman and CEO. As is usual with such regulatory Bills, we will no doubt return to those arguments. I have some sympathy with what my noble friend said.
With regard to the structure of the industry as a whole, there is no presumption that the present structure is set in stone. However, it is important that there be a sort of special merger regime that recognises that there are natural structures for the water catchment areas in the regions. Any proposed merger that limited competition would need to be referred to the Competition Commission, and the commission would need to consider whether the merger would be

1007
detrimental. We are starting with a structure that has been set under the nationalised system and the new, privatised system for some time. That does not necessarily mean that it is there for all time with regard to the enterprises that manage it. Nor is there a presumption against all such mergers, and so there needs to be some flexibility for the regulator.
Several other issues were raised that could be hugely controversial in the context of the efficient management of water. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned metering, and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, immediately said that that would not be acceptable in Wales. One would have thought that Wales had enough water, although most of it goes to Manchester and Birmingham. No doubt, some of those issues will be touched on, but they are not covered by the Bill. The noble Lord also spoke about the nature of the companies running the water system. I agree that they do quite well in Wales, with a non-profit company, but we do not propose to change the structure of ownership of the industry through this Bill.
I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone was able to give a broad welcome to the Bill from her perspective with the Environment Agency and wearing her many other hats. It is important that the Environment Agency is sensitive to all the wider issues of water management and to the interests not only of water companies and consumers but to everybody who depends on the effective flow of clean water and the consistent flow of water for industrial and commercial use.
Like other noble Lords, I look forward to the Committee stage. I suspect that it will be wide-ranging, if not as wide-ranging as the Second Reading debate. From what noble Lords have already said, I imagine that a number of amendments to different parts of the Bill will be proposed. I look forward to the discussion.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Women
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewtonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what barriers remain to women's full participation in the political, economic and social life of the country.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this debate to coincide with International Women's Day. I should like to thank all noble Lords taking part. The history of International Women's Day is the story of ordinary women as makers of history and change. It is rooted in the centuries old struggle of women's ability to participate in society on an equal footing with men. It is a day each year to reflect on the progress made by women in playing a full and active role politically, socially and economically, but also to examine what burdens remain and how they might be overcome.
1008
Such an examination has to take place against the changing nature of women's lives. As recently as 25 to 30 years ago—a time that I can remember—the man was seen as the breadwinner, women's expectations were lower and deference was greater. Women hoped for more, but expected little; choice was not on the agenda.
Today we live in a different world. Women's lives have undergone a revolution. Lone parent families make up a quarter of all families, divorce has trebled and seven out of 10 women are in paid work. But at the same time, women still have the major responsibility for the family. Society is still dependent on women's unpaid labour—work all too often unrecognised. But recognition must come, for it is estimated that by 2020 there will be 12 million over-65 year-olds being cared for by working women over the age of 50.
There is a strange belief that the gender debate has been won and that gender equality has arrived. I wish that were true. There has been progress, but women still experience disparities in income, in missed opportunities, in promotion, in inflexible working and suffer harassment at work and violence at home. To end gender discrimination, there must be the development of flexible working, equal opportunity in the workplace, the closing of the pay gap, the removal of the democratic deficit, and a dramatic reduction in the level of violence against women.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the practical problems of women at work, and pay. However, first, I shall say just a word about domestic violence. I do so in order to congratulate the Government on tackling this serious and abhorrent crime—for crime it is. Domestic violence accounts for a quarter of all violent crime and claims the lives of two women per week. Those are unacceptable facts. Stopping domestic violence and bringing perpetrators to justice is a priority. I trust that the consultation paper, due next month, will do that.
I turn now to women at work. Women are professional jugglers. In one day, not only do they do a full time job, but they are mother, grandmother, wife and partner. To do that well and effectively, they need a package of measures of support and services tailored to their new pattern of living. Women want choice and quality. They need financial security, and they need time.
The new deal for lone parents and the changes to the tax and benefit system give real assistance in enabling women to move from welfare to work. The National Childcare Strategy with the provision of 600,000 new childcare places aids choice. But for real choice, we must go further: there must be a democratic shift in the pattern of working. Research by the DTI identified that there is a strong demand for flexible working. Where employers have offered this option, 69 per cent of employees have taken advantage of such options as reduced hours, job sharing, working a set number of hours per year rather than per week, or working from home. However, Equal Opportunities Commission research showed that only half of employees know that as from next month parents with young and disabled

1009
children will have the legal right to ask employers for flexible working. and that employers must seriously consider such requests. Much more publicity is needed.
Sensible employers know that if they offer flexibility, they will gain from a reduction in staff turnover, a reduction in absenteeism, and increased motivation, loyalty and productivity. But flexible working must not mean a loss in promotion prospects, currently too often the case for the 42 per cent of women who work part-time.
The 2001 census confirmed that women's and men's jobs are still profoundly affected by their sex. Women remain concentrated in the five lowest paid employment sectors and 60 per cent of women work in just 10 occupational groups. Women make up 84 per cent of employees in personal services; 78 per cent of employees in administrative and secretarial work; and 71 per cent of employees in sales and customer services. There are only 9 per cent in skilled trades; 17 per cent as machine operatives; and only 34 per cent are managers, senior officials and professionals. Fewer than 10 per cent of directors are women and in the FTSE 100 firms, that figure falls to 7 per cent.
The glass ceiling may be broken in places, but it is made of toughened glass and remains shatter proof. Whether it is at senior levels in the public or private sector, women's progress is still blocked by the same prejudices and misconceptions.
Many of those misconceptions start in schools. Girls are outperforming boys at all levels, but sex stereotyping is still prevalent. Sex stereotyping pigeonholes boys and girls into fixed roles and behaviours. It limits an individual's opportunities, as well as contributing to the skills' shortage in sectors such as engineering, science and technology. Despite there being a skills shortage in these subjects, girls are still being steered into traditional areas, particularly for work experience.
The divide is at all levels, through to A-level and into apprenticeships: engineering apprentices are 96 per cent men; health and social care apprentices are 89 per cent women: computer analysts and programmers are 79 per cent men; and primary and nursery teachers are 86 per cent women. Those figures speak for themselves. Careers advisers, teachers, employers and parents all have a responsibility to break this cycle and give more comprehensive advice on the different and differing options available.
Occupation segregation is also one of the key factors for the continuing pay gap. Others are the unequal impact of women's family responsibilities, the secrecy that surrounds pay, the exclusion of women from bonus schemes and lower starting salaries. The latter is so clearly illustrated by the evidence of male graduates earning between 15 and 30 per cent more than female graduates in the same occupations and with the same qualifications. The pay gap stubbornly remains, albeit reduced from 37 per cent when the Equal Pay Act was introduced to 19 per cent today for full-time workers—a gap that widens to 40 per cent for women working part-time.
1010
Businesses are being encouraged by the Government, but not required, to conduct pay audits. It is hoped that 50 per cent of large employers will have carried out such reviews by the end of this year. But as 93 per cent of businesses, big and small, believe themselves satisfied with their current pay systems, this target is unlikely to be met. Pay regulation may be the only way of eliminating the pay gap.
At the end of this month, all government departments will be producing their equal pay reviews. The findings of those reviews, and the hoped-for government response to remove any unjust pay differentials, should be a spur to private employers.
The majority of pensioners are women and in spite of initiatives by the Government to support older women, the pay gap continues to contribute to a pensions gap. The average income of a retired woman pensioner is less than 60 per cent of a retired man's average income. A single woman pensioner's average weekly income is £153 compared with a male single pensioner on £194 per week. That is a 22 per cent difference. This gap in retirement income has to be plugged not only by the state but by private pension schemes which need to be more flexible to take account of women's fragmented career patterns.
In the time allowed, I have been able only to skim the surface of women's discrimination at work and in pay. But women's importance in the labour market is growing. The future success of the UK economy depends on women being able to reach their full potential. We need to change the culture of work so that equal opportunities and equal treatment becomes a priority. We have to continue to break down the barriers and remove the burdens to full participation in society. Only then can we say that women are playing a full part, politically, socially and economically.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, with pleasure, especially in developing her analysis of the problems of promotion for women at work. I focus today on the barriers for women's full participation in our business life, taking it from the top and looking at our 100 largest companies, the FTSE 100 Index. I thank Dr Val Singh and Professor Susan Vinnicombe of the Cranfield Centre for Developing Women Business Leaders for some helpful statistics in their annual female FTSE report. They confirm many of my own observations over the past 26 years, as a result of meeting big company boards in my day job as an investment manager in the City, where I work in equal partnership with a woman.
First, I turn to the facts. In the FTSE there are 14 female executive directors on the boards of Britain's top 100 companies. The noble Baroness has just quoted a figure of 7 per cent for directors of' FTSE companies as a whole, but that is a slightly optimistic assessment because it includes non-executives. For the jobs that really matter—the executive directors—the figure is 3 per cent. So today there are 14 women in that

1011
role; four years ago there were 13. Eighty-nine of the top 100 companies have no woman executive director at all, while the great majority never have had. There is one woman chief executive, one woman chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, and one joint managing director. FTSE retail companies have four executive directors, while two work in the media, one in insurance, two in the former building societies, one in transport and one in health supplies.
What about the vital sectors: oil, leisure, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, water, electricity, information technology, property and the big five clearing banks? They are female-free zones, all of them, as regards women executive directors. The biggest companies, for all their fine gender equality statements and glossy reports stuffed with pictures of happy female faces, are the worst offenders of all. Not a single woman executive sits on the board of one of the top 25 FTSE companies, today valued in total at over £600 billion on the Stock Exchange.
I shall focus on executive directors because they are the people who really matter. They hold the power in a company by controlling the company culture and paths of promotion. We waste too much time both in this House and in business generally agonising about the exact number and role of non-executive directors. Almost all big companies are happy to tick that corporate governance box. They have female non-executives ranging from the genuinely independent and effective down, quite frankly, to the "quango queens" who are there only for adornment.
What kind of message is sent to women working below board level in a company or, indeed, to younger women wondering whether to work at all for that company if no woman has ever worked her way up to the main board? Far too many of our largest companies give the impression not just that there is a glass ceiling for women, but that the door to the boardroom is permanently padlocked. Even the handful of women who have broken through on to the boards of our big companies are usually either foreign or the finance director. So the proportion of women in the top business jobs is pitiful and things are improving at the pace of a lame snail.
The men at the top of the largest companies need to ask themselves for how much longer they can afford to fish in so limited a talent pool. Is there really not a single woman among the tens or even hundreds of thousands they employ who could do their job? If not, what are they doing to encourage, train and promote women, and when do they expect their management succession programmes to deliver? Employees, customers and investors should tell the men on those boards that they are shooting themselves in the foot. They are acting against their own commercial self-interest if the way to the top is not genuinely open to the best talent, regardless of sex. Quotas are not the answer, but enlightened self-interest, backed up by plenty of public pressure and naming and shaming if that is necessary, makes the best case for change.
1012
My wife, who is a doctor and an academic, reminds me often that women will have won equality at work only when there are as many mediocre women in the top jobs as there are mediocre men. On that test, in business, as in so many other walks of our national life, we have an awful long way to go.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, on initiating a very important debate on a special day.
The International Longevity Centre UK, a small think tank which I chair, recently appointed its first fellow, a woman with two children who was at the peak of an exceptional career, with a top finance job in what is traditionally a man's world. She felt that she had to give it all up because she could not manage to have any family life. In spite of the good policies promoted by the Government and many of the best employers, she found the conflict of interests impossible to resolve and wanted a life with her family.
She is now researching how this happens to so many other women—most of them, obviously, in less privileged positions than her—and looking at what policies would enable them, and her, to work on equal terms to men, but recognising the different needs. Huge steps are still needed.
Childcare facilities for women in jobs are limited and expensive for many. For example, a nurse on the top grade—I am the mother of one such young woman—finds it very difficult to cover the costs of a nursery because, as she is earning, she does not qualify for subsidised childcare. The loss of such women to our economy is very serious, especially the many thousands of young aspiring women on whom we place so much responsibility for our future.
As regards older women, we know—the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has told us—that women live longer and in poorer conditions than men. We also know—it has been expressed very eloquently—how this poverty continues throughout life and into old age. Unfortunately, the Government, who are doing a great deal to promote the interests of women—as is the feminist movement, the sisterhood itself—have done much more, in the past at any rate, for younger women than for older women.
We know that women have immense difficulty in matching men in terms of contributions to pensions and that the situation continues to get worse. We also know that women live—possibly partly due to this poverty—in worse health than men typically do. They are not necessarily suffering from life-threatening disease but from disabling and chronic conditions which affect older women more than older men. Claims for incapacity benefit from women are rising.
Many more older women are carers—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, will go into much more detail on this subject—but, because families are changing so rapidly, we now see a lot of what are called "beanpole" families; that is, families consisting of single women of many generations. We

1013
have reached the situation where we have women looking after women looking after women across the generations.
Very often now, the "cared for" largely outnumber the carers. That is a huge burden that many women carry. Many grandmothers— and, indeed, great grandmothers—because of marriages breaking up, now find themselves doing full-time childcare jobs, which is a huge difficulty for many of them.
We also hear in the economy nowadays about family-friendly policies which allow breaks that match the school holidays—indeed, in Parliament, particularly in another place, it is now the routine—and flexible hours that fit in with children's school times. A study in the United States found that there were more carers looking after older people than there were looking after children, and it has a younger population than we have. But most policies do not take into account the needs of people caring for elderly husbands and wives and for older people who may be very frail and whose care often lasts for 15 to 20 years.
As to the issue of older women in the labour market, most employers—not the best ones; there are notable exceptions, mainly in the retail trade and largely in areas of high male unemployment—still feel that older women are not worth training because they do not have time to benefit from their labour. However, it has been demonstrated in research—mainly by the Employers Forum on Age—that younger workers tend to leave their jobs after a year and half to two years, whereas an older employee, perhaps one of 60, will give five years of loyal and reliable service. It is well worth retraining and re-employing older people. They can learn new tricks. We have to recognise that talent does not depend on chronological age. It depends, as it does throughout life, on an individual's skills and capacity to do a job.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gould for bringing this important debate before us today—on the eve of International Women's Day.
Are there any barriers left for women to participate in the political life of this country? Yes, must be the answer. The biggest barrier to overcome for most women is the attitude of members of political parties. In all parties there is still a huge barrier of prejudice towards women who seek elected positions within their party. This can be seen at local officer level, right up to parliamentary level. I believe that there is a genuine desire at the top of all parties to have more women involved. But parties at the top cannot get their members in the constituencies to accept the need to do something positive about it.
Some barriers have been removed—for example, by introducing "family friendly" hours in political institutions, as there are in the Welsh Assembly, and changes to the hours in the House of Commons. But I do not believe that improving the working practices of political institutions is the main barrier to women coming forward to stand for office.
1014
Women put themselves forward for selection, in the main, to serve. Women have as much desire to serve and to make a contribution as men. But that is very difficult to convey to most party members. The main problem is one that women in all walks of life experience—prejudice and discrimination. We have laws to deal with discrimination against women and I believe that it is now time to have laws to overcome prejudice. That will be difficult, but not impossible.
If we look at the present position of women in political life, we see that they are not well represented as local councillors or at parliamentary level. There are exceptions where women are well represented. I refer to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. So why does that happen in Wales and Scotland?
It has not been without difficulty. Special measures were put in place by the Labour Party to ensure that women had an equal chance of being selected; and they worked well. Some believed at that time—in 1999— that the mould had been broken. But, sadly, that was not the case, as the selection of candidates for the general election proved. There are now fewer women Members of Parliament than there were in 1997.
I believe that laws can change people's attitudes towards women. There are already many measures in place. The most recent is the Act which allows political parties to have all-women shortlists when selecting candidates. The Labour Party has already started to use this legislation in Wales when selecting candidates for the Welsh Assembly.
Of the 16 constituency vacancies, six were designated as all-women shortlists. But, in fact, nine women have been selected, making a total of 23 women candidates fighting constituency seats and one woman on the list. So the end result is now 24 women and 17 male candidates. I am not sure what is happening in Wales, but at least it is good! If all the parties in Wales used the legislation, I am sure that there would be at least 30 women Assembly Members out of 60. I am not going to get carried away with this good result. I know that we still have a long way to go before women can achieve equality in all walks of Life.
In the political sphere some changes are taking place. Wales is giving a good lead in the Welsh Assembly elections. The Question asked is what barriers remain. The barrier of prejudice is a big one, but it can be dismantled.
I spoke earlier of the importance of legislation in changing people's attitude. If that is the case, is there a need for further legislation to help remove the centuries-old, worldwide prejudice against women? Yes, is my answer. France, for example, has passed a law, used for the first time in 2001, which imposes a quota of women candidates at local elections. The proportion of women councillors rose from 22 per cent to 48 per cent, proving once again that laws can help women and showing that the electorate do riot discriminate between women and men candidates. Is there any Government thinking to emulate France—only in this matter—in bringing forward legislation to introduce quotas of women candidates at all levels of elections? Does the Minister agree that this must be the

1015
next step in the raft of legislation that already exists to ensure that women can make a full contribution to the political life of this country?
6.41 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for achieving the debate on this significant date and for the marvellous way in which she introduced it.
The terms of the Motion rightly imply that a certain amount has been achieved by successive governments over the years. It is also right that we congratulate the present Government on what they have achieved so far. Their old Labour predecessors were the main architects of the equal pay and sex discrimination legislation and the continuing record of taking measures to make a real difference to women's full participation as UK citizens is worthy of respect.
A major target remains—that of equal pay for work of equal value. I will not repeat what was said, but 30 years after the Equal Pay Act passed into law, and with women continuing to lose between £50,000 and £250,000 over a lifetime, that target must be tackled and achieved. It seems to me that the vital remaining areas fall under two specific headings—attitude change and the need to continue to pinpoint particularly high-profile jobs at the decision-making level. If both were tackled effectively, they would have a considerable knock-on effect with much wider benefits.
The most critical attitude in employment is the acceptance—indeed, the promotion—of the work/life balance. It must become a timetable norm in every workplace. It is not a new concept, it has been urged for some time and I am glad to say that it is gradually gaining acceptance. Married to that—and you cannot have one without the other—is a more widespread acceptance and promotion of a much more equal sharing of family care responsibilities. Men are missing out. They are missing out on children's development, not just on the chores but on the joys of parenthood.
Legislation can often be an appropriate framework within which attitudes can be encouraged to change. A good example was the excellent measure of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, to end sex discrimination in clubs. But legislation cannot do the whole job; ultimately, in a democracy, the people concerned have to accept what is proposed.
In the matter of high-profile jobs, attitudes—conscious or unconscious—must also be dealt with. I will touch briefly on public sector appointments. MPs, and jobs in which the proportion of women remains obstinately low, as well as the corporate sector.
In public appointments—and here thanks are particularly due to Dame Rennie Fritchie, the Commissioner for Public Appointments—the Government have made progress. Every department has been set a 45 to 50 per cent target for women in such appointments by 2005. The DTI's women and equality unit has also conducted an excellent campaign to encourage more women to apply, as only a third of
1016
appointees are women. I should also like yearly statistics to be published by an independent body—perhaps the Audit Commission—giving a comparative ranking of what each department is up to and has achieved.
Despite these commendable efforts, like many people I remain to be convinced that within the public sector, which is an important role model, women make up a proper proportion of those chosen, particularly for the top jobs—chairmanships, chief executives and paid positions. Many of your Lordships will agree that the proportion of women MPs remains abysmal. I shall not go further into that issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, has given us some hope. With the passing of the recent legislation on that subject, we may see more women MPs—and, I hope, more women in this House, too.
Professions such as engineering seem reluctant to recruit or retain enough women. I was going to say more about that. I am particularly pleased that my noble friend Lady Greenfield is here. She is one of our most eminent scientists and I am sure she will talk about the issue. We must have more action to recruit and retain women in that area.
We have heard the numbers—or lack of numbers—of women in the top jobs in the private sector, despite the 30 per cent who make up the management of the corporate sector as a whole. In his report Derek Higgs points out:
"a commitment to equal opportunities, which can be motivational as well as of reputational importance. is inevitably undermined if the board itself does not follow the same guiding principles".
Most of us would be able to think of people in top jobs who should have been there much sooner and others who have not arrived yet. I am thinking particularly of Rachel Lomax, the outstandingly well-qualified candidate who has at last become Deputy Chairman of the Bank of England. If she were a man, I think she would have been there 10 years ago when the vacancy arose.
Why does all this matter? Top decision-making levels in the public or private sectors are important, because that is where the framework within which we all work is decided. The sooner we see a better balance of the sexes at the top level, the sooner we are likely to see a country that better reflects the needs of a modern, competitive economy and the needs and aspirations of both halves of the population. Let us hope that the House of Lords—renamed by then, I hope—will not be called on to debate a Motion similar to this Unstarred Question in 50 years.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Gould on securing this debate and on introducing it in such a vigorous manner. Formidable presences in your Lordships' House, including the Minister responding tonight, may mask the fact that there are still barriers to the full participation of women in public life. I am glad that there are men speaking tonight. Men are sometimes seen as part of the problem, but they are also part of the solution.

1017
Barriers may be due at least in part to the portrayal of girls and women as invisible and without power or influence. Even today, with more and more positive role models, women are struggling against the legacy of that invisibility in many of our institutions. Thankfully, those images have been challenged, nowhere more so than by the feminist movement. However, there are still deep-seated problems to overcome.
We now see many women determined to overcome the barriers in significant numbers and against some opposition. One such young woman—my daughter, who is a director of a large company—told me that at a client meeting she was assumed to be there to organise refreshments and was addressed as "girlie" by visitors until her role was revealed.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said, images of women and the stereotyping of their roles affect women's perception of self and others' perception of them. A French friend of mine told me of learning English from a text book that described men and women. It said:
"He is big, he is strong, he has a lot of money and a big car. She is sad, she is weak, she is ill; she has fainted on the carpet".
Noble Lords may remember an advertisement in which a car was draped with a glamorous woman with very long legs—images of women, fit only to drape over a bonnet. A Women's Press card changed the caption to the advertisement to have the woman say, "When I'm not lying on cars, I'm a brain surgeon". Women strike back.
Let us take another example—fairy stories, where women are always helpless, sometimes persecuted by an evil stepmother or sister, and usually have to be rescued, usually by a handsome prince. Witness Rapunzel, she of the long hair in high towers; Cinderella; Little Red Riding Hood; Sleeping Beauty; or Snow White. The women are passive and pathetic, not participants in their own destiny, not supportive of other women, and good only for serving breakfast to dwarves, being eaten by a wolf or sleeping for a very long time.
In our own Palace of Westminster, the statues and portraits are mainly of males, apart from the extraordinary statues of Queen Elizabeth I and Victoria. Many of the women portrayed were despatched in painful and undignified ways. Women can be seen in pictures along the Corridors beseeching help with baleful looks or clinging to the garments of noblemen. A lot of weeping goes on. Where are the images of proactive, powerful women?
If we look in the daily press, women are often invisible except for trivialisation—displays of body parts or involvement in scandal. I have checked some recent newspapers. There was not a single photograph of women in sport and no mention of women in the major stories of the day. Headlines included, "Why women fall for older men (they know their way around a wine list and don't expect you to go Dutch)" and "Anthony Hopkins marries a bankrupt businesswoman". Women are sometimes mentioned in relation to problems-headlines such as "Why women
1018
worry" or "Help me over this hormone trouble". Women dominate problem pages, often because they see themselves as failing—in relationships, in sexual prowess, in being a parent. It is all negative. Women's bodies are frequently medicalised, as if they have no control over their own health. In one bookshop recently, I came across 15 books on the menopause, 10 on pre-menstrual tension and a very great number on slimming.
Some of that may seem trivial and even frivolous. It is not. Those examples are fed to girls, boys, women and men every day. It is insidious propaganda. We know that how people see themselves, how much self esteem they have, influences what they actually achieve. I suggest that barriers can be subtle but pervasive, and that they still need challenging. leaping over or knocking down.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Greenfield: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. The under-representation of women in science, engineering and technology threatens global competitiveness. It is an issue for society, organisations, employers and the individual. Quite often when you talk to people they say, "It will gradually get better. Things are changing". However, as the statistics over the past five or six years show, that is sadly not the case. In the past six years, the numbers have remained lamentable. In the physical sciences, only 20 per cent of PhDs are women. At the professorial level, the numbers are single figures. One might think that the biomedical sciences, traditionally more attractive to women, offer more hope—indeed, at the PhD level, 50 per cent are women. But then only 30 per cent are lecturers; 15 per cent senior lecturers; and under 10 per cent professors.
It was because of this problem that I was recently invited to submit a report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to explore the difficulties, but also to try to come up with some solutions to the problems of women in science, engineering and technology. One of the most immediate problems for us was that about which we have already heard—having children at the critical phase in one's career. The problem is particularly acute in science where there is no career structure at all in the public sector until you are in your mid-30s. One is dependent on temporary grants during two to three years of living hand to mouth while doing research and publishing papers. It is precisely at that time when one is biologically at one's optimum for having children that one threatens to set oneself back if one has children and cannot get into the race to publish papers and to gain grants.
The solution that I propose is that of ring-fenced funds to enable any woman or, indeed, man, who has had primary care of a child and therefore has potentially jeopardised her or his publication record, to apply for grants from a ring-fenced pool of funds. That would enable them to re-enter—pump prime, if you like—their career, catch up and start to publish again.

1019
Women in mid-career are not represented on panels to the extent that they should be. They lack policy making experience and they lack the mentoring that they so badly need. A mentor is someone who believes in you more than you believe in yourself. Speaking as a woman involved in science, I can vouchsafe that it is important to have someone in whom you can confide and to whom you can pour out your troubles so that you do not bottle things up but rather can explore positive ways forward. The report proposes a nation-wide mentoring scheme to help women.
I turn to the notorious glass ceiling. Women do not apply for senior jobs. Moreover, they are not known to search committees or to head-hunters. That is because women are notorious for not putting themselves forward. There is an old saying that if there are 10 desiderata at a particular interview, men will promote the seven in which they are proficient whereas women will apologise for the three in which they are deficient.
What we need is a system to help women come to the attention of head-hunters and search committees and give them the confidence to apply for jobs and grants. One possibility is to have what is called a working science centre—a sort of database that almost constitutes an employment agency—to enable anyone to consult a database to find out who and what is available. It would simply bring the appropriate candidates—they could be men as well as women—to the attention of potential employers. We know that that is possible as we already have vast databases thanks to the HEFC and research assessment exercises. It would require very little effort to maintain and update those databases and to make them available both to the private and public sectors. It is done already at the Royal Institution to bring together the media and scientists. It would not be hugely expensive and, moreover, it could be funded both by government and by the private sector. I draw an analogy with a media centre. It is possible to ask for very small contributions and obtain multiple donations from industry. In that way many subscribe without it being too much of a burden on them.
Other possibilities are carrot and stick measures to encourage the culture of job sharing and part-time working. Why should that be such an anathema? Traditionally one likes to think that one is the sole pioneer in science. However, scientific papers are usually multi author. I see no reason therefore why one cannot encourage job sharing. Certainly as regards teaching and research, one could encourage a certain amount of sharing in respect of the teaching component.
One could also have teaching remission or, indeed, provide extra funds for those of us who have to bear the extra burden of being the token woman on committees and visit girls' schools to promote the role of women in science, engineering and technology.
Science is at the centre of all our lives and is becoming increasingly so. It affects nutrition, education, reproduction, the climate,
1020
communication—everything that we hold dear. We cannot afford to allow 50 per cent of the talent in that sector to haemorrhage.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, when a little girl is born, she is born with about 2 million eggs in her ovaries. When the ovaries are first formed, she has 5 million eggs in her ovaries. She has already lost the largest proportion of them by the time she is born. By the time she reaches puberty, it is calculated that she has about 200,000 to 300,000 left. Thereafter, she will ovulate, if she is fertile, once a month. That is about 360 to 400 eggs. The rest are lost by a process of programmed cell death during reproductive life. It is a staggering loss. To give noble Lords an idea, during the course of this debate—one and a half hours—the average child-bearing woman will have lost one egg. In the same period of time I shall have made about 10,000 sperm, but that is another matter.
We are forgetting the serious issue that women are very seriously penalised by their biology. If we look at the statistics, the age for having a first child in the United Kingdom is rising year on year, as in most western societies. It is doing so because women are getting skills and education, competing with men in the workplace, earning as much as men and contributing as much to society. However, they are severely penalised. Until we address that, we have a serious problem as to how we deal with the rest of women's status in society.
The great majority of the women whom I see in my clinic have contributed to society and are then penalised. Under the National Health Service, they cannot even get infertility treatment because they are too old. It is worth pointing out that fertility drops dramatically after the age of 35. By the age of 40, at least one-third of women will be infertile. By the age of 42, it is calculated that about two- thirds of women will be infertile. Most pregnancies after that age end in miscarriage. That is a grievous loss of life and is appalling for a woman to contemplate. It is truly shocking. I am sad to say—I say it to the Minister, whose job is not to answer health questions directly—that it has been unfortunately neglected in the health service, and we need to do something about it fairly immediately.
We have sought to use all sorts of inappropriate treatments for the problem. For example, egg sharing is allowed in this country under regulation by the HFEA, so that young women can be exploited to give up their eggs to older women. That is only in the private sector. No National Health Service hospital will do that, because most of them do not regard it as ethical. There is a growing trade in fertility treatment, which means that 90 per cent of affected women cannot get it under the National Health Service. With the exception of one or two health authorities in the London area, virtually none will offer treatment to women over the age of 37 or 38.
It is time that we found ways to deal with the situation. One way that is quite clear is to recognise the problem of age. The Government have focused on

1021
chlamydia causing infertility. Believe me as someone who has practised in the subject for many years: chlamydia is totally insignificant in comparison with age. Age is much more serious. The problem of chlamydia is that it gives the idea that somehow a woman has caused her infertility. It is a terrible canard and causes great anguish to the very many women who think in some way that they are responsible for their agonising plight. The pain of infertility is equal to the pain of osteo-arthritis of the hip, but it is not dealt with sympathetically and it needs to be. We have to consider that issue very seriously. Until we have improved our reproductive medical services, there will be problems.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, raised the issue of science. It is a real possibility that if there were funding in the area to research how we might prolong reproductive life, we could do so by five or 10 years in women, preserve eggs in the ovary and prevent some of that cell death. That is certainly worth consideration. It would be one solution. It is worth bearing in mind that women are far fitter and live longer nowadays. Therefore, they could probably child-rear later, but are penalised because of their biology. It seems to me that biology penalises them primarily at the moment, and society is failing to take cognisance of that fact.
7.4 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords—although on this of all evenings I would prefer to say, "My Ladies"—I congratulate my noble friend and say what a joy it is to take part in a debate with so many powerful and articulate ladies and, of course, some powerful and articulate men.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I shall focus on carers, for whom there is a dilemma so far as the topic of the debate is concerned. Although I would not want in any way to discount the contribution of male carers at the heavy end of caring, this is still largely a women's issue. On the one hand, women carers make the most enormous contribution to the economic and social life of this country. Others have referred to that. It is not at all unusual for a woman to have a caring career, starting perhaps as a young carer, going on to care for a child, then for an ageing parent and finally for a spouse. Nor is it at all unusual for women to be multiple carers: I met someone the other day who was caring for two elderly parents and a son with a learning disability. They make a huge contribution as the cornerstone of community and healthcare.
Their contribution was calculated last year as being worth £57 billion per year. That is a sum equivalent to the cost of the National Health Service. The fact that that care is provided within a relationship, usually willingly and almost always with love, should not and must not blind us to the value of that contribution and to the fact that it makes very sound economic as well as moral good sense to support carers. As one carer said,
"Society would collapse without carers—don't ignore us".
We must never forget that vast participation in the economic life of our country.
1022
On the other side of the argument, I can also put a case about women being prevented from making their full contribution by the restrictions which caring duties place on them. Those duties affect their health. Six out of 10 carers report that their health has been adversely affected by caring. If they are providing substantial care, they are over twice as likely as the rest of the population to have mental health problems, especially if they are receiving no relief at all. Many are in that position.
Carers are also poor. In a Carers UK study, 77 per cent reported being worse off financially as a result of becoming a carer, attributable to loss of income when they had to give up work and to the extra costs of disability. The combined effects of poverty and ill health can lead to isolation and social exclusion and leave carers ill-equipped to deal with life even alter their caring duties are over.
Nowhere is that more apparent than with regard to carers in the workplace. Another Carers UK study, Redressing the Balance, points out that carers attempting to rejoin or remain in the workforce are affected by three different types of barrier: the individual barrier of their lack of skills and confidence, especially if they have spent years out of the workforce; systems barriers, which can be about lack of information and problems in getting adequate support services; and financial disincentives to working because of the rules in the benefit system, especially concerning part-time work. There are labour market barriers too. Employers do not always understand the needs of carer employees or offer appropriate flexible working practices.
So, carers struggle in the workplace, and that can he a waste of a very precious resource. Those employers which take pains to support carers—Centrica, for example, has very good working practices—find ample reward, as carers take the commitment and skill they brought to their caring role into the workplace to everyone's benefit. In the workplace or at home carers need recognition and respect, choice, a decent income, proper information and practical help. We must try to ensure that they receive them.
However, I must not he unduly pessimistic. This Government have a proud record of support for this country's carers, male and female, from the National Carers Strategy and the Carers and Disabled Children Act to changes in the benefit, pension and tax systems to recognise carers and the major changes recently made to the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill to recognise the position of carers. Much has been done to improve the position of carers and the way in which we recognise their contribution. More remains to be done, but the power of the carers movement grows year by year.
In the face of the barriers which exist, we can only marvel that, despite everything, carers manage to become involved in their local carers' groups, with local and national health and social care organisations, and somehow manage to become drivers for change. I met a carer in the North of England last week who is now chair of' her local

1023
authority social services committee, having become both politicised and empowered by setting up a carers' support group. As she said to me,
"Our voice gets stronger all the time. All we are asking for is a fair deal".
7.9 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I want to speak on women, low pay and exploitation in the public services. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lady Gould for initiating this debate and for her lifetime of leadership in this area. I worked with Joyce for many years and it was a great privilege. I also had the privilege to represent low-paid workers for 24 years— 80 per cent of whom were women—when I worked for NUPE/Unison as a trade union official.
These women carry the grand titles of ancillary workers, cleaners, orderlies, domestics, kitchen maids, dinner ladies and so on. Their job titles, as does their pay, reflect the value society places upon their work— not much.
Throughout my years as a union official, we fought and campaigned for better pay and recognition for millions of workers, many of whom were part-time, who performed these important jobs and yet they were unseen and undervalued by the people for whom they worked.
In 1997 we achieved what we believed to he a major breakthrough. That was the election of a Labour Government. At last we had the opportunity to halt the privatisation and the competitive tendering that had been eating away at our members' already unsatisfactory pay and conditions. Sadly, we were mistaken. The drive to market test, the push to outsource, the obsession with subcontracting and the dogma of best value cascaded down on the directors of the private companies but on the backs of low-paid women workers.
I have no time to show the scars, but believe me they are deep and unnecessary. I urge all those who hear or read my words to read Polly Toynbee's excellent book, Hard Work: Life in Low-pay Britain, and to witness in those pages the loss of pay, pensions, holidays, maternity rights, dignity and self-respect that these women in public services that have been privatised have experienced.
I am angry—and I have always been angry—about low pay and its effect on women workers, in particular. However, I want to offer some solutions. They are: first, the simplest and most beneficial way to deal with low pay is for employers to value their workforce and to pay a decent and fair wage. That so many employers choose to exploit workers and expect to get the best from them has always been of constant amazement to me throughout my life.
Secondly, in the absence of that, the state must step in. Here I want briefly to pay tribute to an old friend, Rodney Bickerstaff, the former general secretary of Unison, without whom we would not have a national minimum wage. That minimum wage is about to be updated. The TUC is asking for it to be raised from £5
1024
to £5.30 per hour. I urge those concerned and others with influence to make it so and to ignore the objections of those who should know better.
Thirdly, the new agreement in the public services on ending the two-tier workforce is very welcome. It should be implemented with commitment and enthusiasm. The spirit and intent of the agreement should be to end economic exploitation of low-paid workers and to introduce dignity and pride at the place of work.
Fourthly, the trade unions have fought hard for government action on this agenda but have failed to recruit and organise low-paid workers. Only 15 per cent of workers in privatised companies providing public serves are trade union members. More needs to be done by the Government. They should talk to the Government about what help might be given.
Fifthly, the use of union learning representatives, learning accounts and learning centres needs to he targeted at low-paid workers. For example, all employers and unions should be involved in introducing basic literacy and skills development for the low-paid workforce. That approach is absolutely crucial. It is about self-help. It opens doors for people in those jobs that have so far remained closed.
I do not have time to discuss childcare and benefit issues, which I recognise are crucial to this debate. My five points are directed at unions, employers and government. If they were taken up they would bring an end to a shameful period of exploitation of women workers, of which none of us can be proud.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for putting down this subject for debate today. She picked a good topic for the right day and we have heard some splendid speeches—not least that of the noble Baroness herself.
Trying not to use up too much time, I shall try not to repeat points made by other speakers—not even, on most occasions, to refer to their speeches. I beg their pardon.
I start from the simple principle that poverty is the greatest inhibitor of women's participation in society. We should be thankful today that the poverty that keeps women chained to back-breaking, unpaid work throughout the developing world is no longer commonplace here; that women in this country are able to control their fertility and access education and work; that we are not forced to flee from our homes; or are, except in a few cases, subject to trafficking as prostitutes into foreign lands.
I make that point to put the problems of women in the United Kingdom in their proper context and show how far we have come. Nevertheless, as many have said, we have not achieved economic security equal to men, by any means. There are seldom complaints from men that women dominate the caring professions, or other poorly paid employment, such as the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, described. Those areas of employment lack prestige and, taking a cynical view,

1025
may be thought to be suitable for women—a form of housework, in fact. They ma), be badly paid and lacking in prestige because women predominate, but I do not have time to develop that argument.
My noble friend Lord Oakeshott has vividly illustrated the problems of reaching the top in business. Success in penetrating the professions at a perfectly ordinary level can also apparently cause unease. The news that more women than men are now training to be doctors seemed to have the British Medical Association in a spin a few months ago, with dark talk about quotas for male students. No doubt experience will show that increased numbers of women in medicine will benefit healthcare and worries will dissipate with experience.
On the other hand, the success of women in capturing some really key jobs is somewhat reassuring. In particular, I think of the first woman president of the Law Society and the success of women in capturing two of the three main jobs at the Trades Union Congress—a welcome development in an organisation that has not always seemed sympathetic to the cause of equality for women in the workplace.
However, the concentration of women in badly paid employment is directly reflected in the earnings gap between men and women. The news that that gap increased last year is discouraging. That has important consequences for the number of women who are poor in their life in retirement. That is especially worrying for their further participation in social life, not just for the women themselves hut for society as a whole.
Every voluntary group, including the political parties, knows that in recent years we have lost the most valuable source of volunteers as women have left the marital home for work. If women continue to be poor as pensioners, they may still be unable to play a full part in local society, although they have much to offer.
Women have not been as successful as many of us would have wished in national politics, although, in my experience, the picture in local government is a little better. Years ago, I was in charge of the approval of a selection process for my party in England. I was pleased that we proposed a higher proportion of women as candidates than any other party. We won so few seats that the fact that those women tended not to be selected in winnable seats seemed unimportant. But of course it is of the greatest importance. All the main parties are currently having some difficulty with that, despite the change in the law introduced by the Government—largely, I suspect, because of the prejudice of local selection committees.
There has been much glee in the press about the problems of the Conservative Party and Theresa May in that regard, but that glee is totally misplaced. It does the reputation of our Parliament no good to appear so unrepresentative of the population at large. If substantial improvement does not take place soon, the House of Commons will seem even more out of touch with the people than it does at present. After all, people are now used to seeing women in their workplace. Perhaps the grey suits even deter voters from voting.
1026
Gisela Stuart is about to celebrate 50 years of continuous representation by women MPs in Edgbaston. I have been invited to join her in Birmingham for that event and am looking forward to doing so.
This is an important subject; we have heard some wonderful speeches; I look forward to listening to the Minister sum up.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I, too. heartily congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, on introducing this important debate, especially since it is International Women's Day. I also congratulate her on the announcement today of her chairmanship of the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV, which is extremely welcome.
I would love to respond to all the eloquent, concise speeches on this diverse, important subject, in which so many issues were raised from different perspectives. I will be unable to do so in the six minutes allowed, but I shall try. I received an excellent brief from the House of Lords Library containing many articles on the subject. One, in particular, set me off. Its headline reads:
"Even men say women make the best bosses".
The subject was cogently covered by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Howe. The Higgs report is helpful. Let us hope that a difference is made for those who should be at the top in business. As the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said, business is acting against its own commercial interests in not opening the way for women to make it to the top.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, spoke of t he conflict of coping with family life, which is a real issue that touches on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. We are all working against our biological clock, trying to achieve so much, but there is that huge problem. Could research be carried out to find out whether it is possible to prolong women's childbearing life to enable them to remain in the workplace?
The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, mentioned the under-representation of women in science and technology. I did not realise that a career structure for women in the public sector did not exist until they are in their 30s, which creates a serious barrier to participation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, spoke eloquently, as ever, about carers and their vast contribution to the economic life of the country. The movement has grown, which I applaud. The noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, spoke passionately about continuing exploitation in the workplace. Low pay continues to be a problem. Employers need to value the need for dignity and pride in the workplace and to value their workforce.
I shall use this opportunity to celebrate women Peers in your Lordships' House. The noble Baronesses, Lady Gale and Lady Thomas of Walliswood, spoke eloquently about politics. But I

1027
was surprised that no lady Peer even mentioned us when discussing the subject. I have before me a formidable list of Front-Bench women Peers. I speak also of Back-Bench and Cross-Bench women Peers who attend regularly. Noble Lords have said that, without women Peers, the business of your Lordships' House would collapse. Collectively, they embody an outstanding cross-section of skills, expertise and experience. All debate on women and politics focuses on another place as if we barely existed. Perhaps because we are not elected we are perceived as politically illegitimate.
The reputation of all noble Lords was not helped by the awful documentary on your Lordships' House by one Molly Dineen, who failed to understand or appreciate our collective strengths, calibre and purpose. In addition, I recall hearing a woman, when first appointed as a people's Peer, say on the radio that she had greater legitimacy than existing Members of your Lordships' House. That is nonsense. On the contrary, the joy is that, with regard to our role, we are all equal before your Lordships' House. As women Peers, we are at one with our male fellow Peers. That said, I cannot resist the opportunity to articulate the view that, in the treatment that we and our spouses receive—I make a distinction between our role and the treatment that we receive—sexism exists, and most of it does not even occur to male Peers.
Where does the title "Baroness" come from? Somewhere in Europe? It is a constant source of confusion and even, sometimes, embarrassment. I must give a small example. If I book a restaurant or a theatre ticket in my name and my husband presents his card, as Mr Philip Buscombe, to pay, I am sometimes looked on as something of an impostor, a fake. No one understands the title "Baroness", and most assume that we are just someone's appendage. Following the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999, there is no reason why our husbands should not be afforded the same respect as the wife of a male Peer, given that the title "Lord" does not, as of right, bring a seat in your Lordships' House.
The fact that Peeresses are seated in our place on the Benches at the State Opening, while our husbands, who are requested to wear morning dress, are consigned to the Strangers' Gallery, is insulting. It seems odd that we should have the Equality Bill before your Lordships' House and regularly debate general equality issues—which is good—when we put up with inequality in the way that we treat ourselves. It is time to change. The greatest barrier to participation in your Lordships' House is financial. As long as we remain unpaid, full participation will remain the luxury of a few. That cannot be right.
I shall finish with the words of a French woman politician:
"Some men seek power for its own sake; women seek power so that they can get things done".
I believe that that is true. We should take care to think about our position in your Lordships' House.
7.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it is a huge pleasure to have the privilege of responding to the debate. I add my voice to those rightly congratulating my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton on securing the debate, which celebrates and marks International Women's Day, first celebrated on 19th March, 1911.
My noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton made it plain, as did several noble Lords, that we had come a long way since 1911—but not quite far enough. It is clear from what all noble Lords said that we are on a journey. It has been an extremely long journey, and we are all hopeful that it will soon come to an end. There are no easy answers, but, tonight, we touched on some of the possible pathways that we need to take to resolve the issues. I thank all those who applauded the efforts made by the Government to address this difficult and complex issue. I thank them particularly for the kind words about domestic violence, carers, the pay gap, low pay and poverty.
We were all greatly amused and delighted by the description given by my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen of the invisible woman. We smiled and laughed. What was sad about it was that we all recognised a huge grain of truth about the depiction of women over many years. That presents a challenge. As my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, we must consider what we are doing to our children, our boys and our girls. If we are to change stereotypes, all our young people must be given a more positive image of what they should be and how they should participate.
The Government recognise that schools cannot directly tackle the problems of stereotyping, the pay gap, or the skills shortage. However, we should ensure that young girls understand the long-term impact of the choices that they make at 13 or 14 years-old. That is why the Women and Equality Unit has produced an information pack for International Women's Day entitled, Does Sex Make A Difference? There are copies in the Library. I hope all noble Lords will take advantage of obtaining a copy. The information pack is crammed full of statistics, plans on the pay gap and information on stereotyping, women in public life and domestic violence. It covers many of the topics which we have alighted upon today.
While listening to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, complemented by the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, I wanted to say that it should be made standard reading for all the FTSE 100 companies and beyond. It was all eloquently stated. These difficulties are very real. The pay gap, which still stands at 19 per cent, is a good example of one of the problems. As many noble Lords have said, we know that women make an important contribution to the success of the economy. However, still they are stereotyped into a narrow range of low paying jobs—as alluded to by my noble friend Lord Sawyer.

1029
In particular, women from the Indian sub-continent earn much lower average hourly wages than white women. However, the Government have made it clear that equal pay and business success go hand in hand. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that one of the real issues is poverty. I say to my noble friend Lord Sawyer that that is precisely why the Government have recognised the need to tackle low pay, which affects minority ethnic women more than anyone else. Therefore, we introduced the national minimum wage in 1999, currently £4.20 per hour. That represented a real boost to the pay of low-paid workers, 70 per cent—I repeat 70 per cent—of whom are women. Approximately 1 million women have benefited. Of course, I hear all that my noble friend said and that we need to do more.
Our determination to close the pay gap is not just about money, it is about social justice and sound economics—not least because the economy is facing serious skills shortages in sectors such as IT, science and engineering. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for her report last year on this issue. The Government are currently reviewing its recommendations. I agree with the way in which she powerfully set out the case today.
I am pleased that the Equal Opportunities Commission and Opportunity Now—which is a business-led campaign to realise the benefits of ensuring that women fulfil their potential—have set up a forum of 240 employers to share best practice and to encourage them to carry out equal pay reviews. The Government are also leading by example. As a noble Lord said, there is no point if one has the rhetoric but does not actually deliver the goods. Therefore, the Government are attempting to do that. We have set a target of April 2003 for departments and agencies to conduct an equal pay audit and prepare action plans to close any gaps.
The issue for women is also about progression. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, were absolutely clear. The recent report by Derek Higgs painted a similar picture. As noble Lords will know, the Government are currently looking at how to take forward some of those proposals.
However, I am pleased to say that matters are improving. I agree with the noble Baroness when she says that we should celebrate the achievements of this House—the Front Benches, the Back Benches and the representation of women. Our figures are improving and we should like to see them improve even more. Currently, 16 per cent of our House is made up of women. I want to emphasise the fact that on the Government Front Bench there are six women out of a total of 17. As regards Whips, equality really reigns because we have three male and three female Whips. Therefore congratulations are due.
Perhaps I may also congratulate Wales. My noble friend Lady Gale was right in emphasising the achievements there. However, I was interested to hear about the French experience, but we have new
1030
legislation and we do not know whether we will follow them. I believe that sometimes the French are better placed in following us, but that is for another debate.
On the importance of childcare, I am powerfully supportive of the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Greenfield and Lady Greengross. Obstacles face women who want to return to work— for instance, the lack of decent childcare—and our new strategy to expand childcare provision particularly in disadvantaged areas has already benefited more than 1 million children. The Government have legislated so that from April this year, employers must seriously consider requests to work flexibly from employees with children under six and disabled children under 18. We recognise that not everyone who wants to work flexibly is a parent. Therefore, the Government have taken action by introducing time off for workers with dependants for family emergencies.
We also want to see more women in this House and in another place. The Government want to encourage more women to apply to join the boards of our public bodies, because only about one third of the places are held by women and just under 2 per cent by women from minority ethnic communities. We have pledged that by 2005 women should hold about half of all appointments. For example, in the Lord Chancellor's Department 43 per cent of appointments should be held by women and 4.5 per cent by members of ethnic minorities by 2005. Last year, the Government ran a series of seminars to encourage more women to enter public life. I spoke in Leicester to minority ethnic women and it was a delightful occasion. We certainly hope that many more women will come forward.
Domestic violence was touched on lightly by my noble friend Lady Gould. I agree that the statistics in that regard are truly shocking. However, we are trying to take positive steps to address the issue. My department is also taking action by improving the way in which the different jurisdictions interact and we are providing £2.5 million over the next three years for a children's fund to develop and expand the provision of supervised contact centres.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, spoke about women pensioners. She is right in saying that they are among the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. That is why we have introduced a range of policies which directly benefit women, including the state second pension; a particular ballast relating to carers, as has been noted by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley; the stakeholder pensions; and pension sharing on divorce.
I turn briefly to address some of the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Winston. He is right in saying that women have to face the difficulties presented by biology. I am grateful to him for his most thoughtful speech. I say in reply that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is to issue guidelines so that the latest knowledge and the best practice are available to all parts of the NHS. The health authorities and trusts right across the country will be expected to implement the NICE guidelines in full. In that way, we will be

1031
assisted in our determination to ensure that in future couples receive fairer and faster access to clinically cost-effective and appropriate fertility treatment.
We have had the most splendid and delightful debate. Perhaps it was not long enough; I am sure that noble Lords could have gone into a great deal more
1032
depth on many of the issues. However, I rejoice in all the contributions that have been made and I hope that real attention will be paid to what noble Lords have had to say. All the points were extremely well made.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Dr Oscar Elias Biscet
  Dr Oscar Elias Biscet
  Drugs Possession Cases: Analysis Times
  Drugs Possession Cases: Analysis Times
  Wrongful Conviction: Compensation
  Wrongful Conviction: Compensation
  Sex Offenders: Travel Abroad
  Sex Offenders: Travel Abroad
  Baby Bonus
  Baby Bonus
  Defence Medical Services Officers: Pay Recommendations
  Defence Medical Services Officers: Pay Recommendations
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  e-business
  e-business
  Broadband
  Broadband
  Glucose Meters
  Glucose Meters
  Public Services: Competition
  Public Services: Competition
  Irish and Ulster Scots
  Irish and Ulster Scots
  Northern Ireland Civil Service
  Northern Ireland Civil Service
  Broadcasting: Invitations for Ministerial Interviews
  Broadcasting: Invitations for Ministerial Interviews