Sitting of 10 March 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Digital Television
    Norman Baker:If she will make a statement on access to digital television. [101454]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells):I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for North Devon (Nick Harvey) have been informed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not able to be in the Chamber today.
    Figures provided by the broadcasters and the Independent Television Commission indicate that there are now between 9.6 million and 9.9 million UK households with access to digital television. We continue to work with stakeholders towards meeting the two primary objectives set out in the digital television
    2
    action plan: to make the UK the leader in digital television in the G7 and to achieve the criteria that will allow us to complete digital switchover.
    Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister, but what does he say to my constituents who can receive neither digital terrestrial television, and hence the BBC's new services, nor access cable? They want to know why they have to pay twice, first through the licence fee for services that they cannot get, and secondly through Sky to access services that the rest of us get for nothing. What will the Minister do to ensure that the BBC rolls out services to those who do not have them before embarking on new provision?
    Dr. Howells: There are two parts to that question. The hon. Gentleman asks me what I would say to his constituents. I would say exactly the same thing as I say to my constituents who also cannot get digital terrestrial signals: it will come. We are working with all broadcasters, including the BBC, to ensure that we achieve more than 80 per cent. coverage. Coverage for all six multiplexes is about 73 per cent., but by concentrating on the 80 main transmitters, we hope to increase coverage to 80 per cent. across the country; then, we will work on those areas whose topography makes them more difficult. I am confident that we will get there, and sooner than people have predicted.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Much as I hate to agree with a Liberal Democrat, there is a sense in many constituencies that the slowness of the BBC and Crown Castle's roll-out of digital terrestrial television is a problem. The Minister's constituency might fall within the 80 per cent. coverage, but I suspect that Rhondda does not, and my constituents would like to know when the Government hope they will get digital terrestrial television.
    Another problem is that BBC 3 and BBC 4 are available only in digital form and cable television is still analogue in many parts of the country. Will the Minister permit the BBC to provide analogue BBC 3 and BBC 4?
    Dr. Howells: I cannot envisage that happening, as my hon. Friend well knows. However, at least four wards in my constituency—which I suppose are classified as Rhondda wards, despite the fact that my hon. Friend's constituency covers only the northern part of the area—are similarly affected, and we, too, have a lot of steep hillsides. I am absolutely confident that at the point of switchover our constituents will not receive a service that is in any way worse than in any other part of the country. We shall certainly discuss the services he mentioned with the BBC.
    Nick Harvey: Does the Minister agree that until all homes have ready access to digital TV, many people's best chance to see digital TV sports coverage is in their local pub? Can he explain why a pub can entertain people with a large digital television set showing a pop concert, whereas, under his Licensing Bill, if it wants to offer small-scale live music, a licence will be required? Does he understand the anxiety felt by many people, including the readers of the Western Morning News, which is running a campaign on the issue, that the measure will imperil live music in pubs?
    Dr. Howells: That is the most ingenious question that I have heard in three weeks.
    David Cairns: Does my hon. Friend agree with me and our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, that access to digital television is central to the Government's stated aim of e-delivery of Government services, and that my constituents, most of whom do not have a computer but almost all of whom have a television, are in grave danger of being left behind in the e-revolution? What message can I take to my constituents in Wemyss Bay and Inverkip, some of whom cannot even get Channel Five—although I have told them that they are not missing much—to persuade them that the Government take the matter seriously? Do the Govt acknowledge that the issue is not merely better television services, but the future of e-delivery of Government services?
    Dr. Howells: The Government take e-delivery of Government services very seriously. Our work to get libraries and schools on stream is acknowledged everywhere as groundbreaking and revolutionary, and I am confident that there will be no deficit in terms of communities' access to the internet. My hon. Friend is right to speak of television as a means of accessing the internet. I am sure that he knows about the large amount of work being done by many companies at technical level to make the interactive element of television much more sophisticated and faster than it is now. I am confident that soon we will take great strides in that respect.

    Digital Television
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: When she will announce the date for analogue switch-off. [101455]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The criteria set for switchover are as follows: everyone who can currently get the main public
    4
    service broadcasting channels in analogue form must be able to receive them on digital systems; switching to digital is an affordable option for the vast majority of people; and as a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers must have access to digital equipment. The objective of the digital television action plan is to ensure these criteria are met so that we can, if we choose, take the decision to proceed to full switchover by ordering the switching off by 2010 of analogue terrestrial transmissions.
    Mr. Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that rather difficult reply, given that he said earlier that 80 per cent. of consumers would receive digital terrestrial, but 95 per cent. must get digital television. Surely there is some mistake there. We said five years ago that switch-off would be between 2006 and 2010. People buy a new television set every eight years, on average. If we are to plan switch-off now, that means 2011 at the earliest. It is important that we keep a digital smart economy ahead of the rest of Europe and of America. Can my hon. Friend be more explicit about when he expects the switch-off to take place?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who I know is very interested in these matters, knows the difference between digital terrestrial signals and signals that can come via satellite or cable. There is a difference. That is where the 15 per cent. of which he spoke is made up.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that even though people are buying sets that are designed to receive analogue transmission, most of them can also be used with set-top box receivers, which enable digital signals to be used by analogue sets. I am sure that even my hon. Friend would admit that the 500,000 free-view systems that have been sold in the past four and a half months are a sign that there is a real appetite on the part of the public and that we shall meet the targets sooner than has been predicted.

    Regional Theatres
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: What action she is taking to support regional theatres. [101456]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): As a result of the theatre review, Arts Council England invested an additional £12 million in theatre throughout England, in 2002–03. From April this year, it will increase to £25 million. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that an example is the Nuffield in Southampton, which has been allocated an increase in funding of about 38 per cent., or in monetary terms, £144,000.
    Dr. Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome news, especially about the funding for the Nuffield theatre, which is 350 yd from my house. Does he acknowledge the strong support that many progressive local authorities provide for the development and retention of regional theatres, and particularly Southampton city council's support for a new home for the Gantry theatre in the centre of the city, in a development that it is pursuing? Does my right hon.

    5
    Friend agree that his Department should liaise closely with local authorities where future funding is considered for regional theatre?
    Mr. Caborn: Very much so. The increase that I have referred to following the review from 2000 to 2004 is a 72 per cent. increase in the budgets. That is the most significant single increase ever for an art form. The Gantry theatre is an example of a theatre becoming part of the synergy between the creative industries. The approach of local authorities and other partners is extremely good.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as regional theatre we need to go down to local theatre to ensure that amateur and professional theatres, such as the Mechanics theatre in Burnley, survive? There is a link between local theatre and regional—and ultimately, national—theatre production.
    Mr. Caborn: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's specific question. I know that he will write to me. The 72 per cent. increase in investment is not just about bricks and mortar, it is about children and young people, diversity and, probably more important than anything, new writers. Fifty organisations have been set up to encourage young people to become involved in writing for the theatre and, it is to be hoped, for film as well. This is a comprehensive approach to the theatre to see how it can drive into the modern arts and into the modern economy as well.

    Olympic Bid
    Angela Watkinson: If she will make a statement on the Government's policy on a London bid for the 2012 Olympic games. [101457]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government fully recognise the potential benefits of a bid to host both the 2012 Olympics and the Paralympic games, which are sometimes forgotten when we talk about the Olympic games. It is important that any prospective bid be subject to full and rigorous scrutiny to ensure that it covers all eventualities and makes sufficient allowances for contingencies, which is why we have conducted detailed work on the cost and benefits of hosting the games in London in 2012.
    Angela Watkinson: Does the Minister agree that a successful bid would be a tremendous boost for tourism in London, specifically the regeneration of east London and the Thames gateway, part of which lies in the London borough of Havering? I urge him to announce as soon as possible the funding arrangements for the bid.
    Mr. Caborn: I agree. We have been taking seriously inward investment in tourism and the impact on the Thames gateway. In fact, when submitting our proposals to the Cabinet we have had to consider carefully the effect on the 20-year plan for the Thames gateway, because we do not want expenditure priorities to affect that development. Equally, we do not want a bid to stop development, which could happen if the
    6
    matter is not handled properly. It is therefore important to make sure that, if we make a bid, it dovetails with developments such as the Thames gateway.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a further benefit of holding the 2012 Olympic games in London would be significant new investment in sporting facilities to help grassroots sport? What assessment have his officials made of the way in which such investment could be spread outside the immediate area of the games, perhaps as far as west London?
    Mr. Caborn: On the regional development of sport, we are mindful that there must not be a diversion of funds from grassroots development into the submission of an Olympic bid. Yes, an Olympic bid may have regional benefits and, if a bid is made and we decide to go ahead, we will look at where we can get regional advantages both in running the games and hosting outside-London events such as sailing, shooting and football. Those are three sports that spring to mind where the regions could have an advantage and could be the sites of training camps before the Olympics.
    Richard Ottaway: May I urge the Minister not to be put off by arguments that because the dome was a flop so will the Olympics be? With the dome, people did not know what they wanted to put in it or what they wanted to do with it afterwards. If the capital city of the world's fourth largest economy cannot make a bid, that does not say much for Britain, does it?
    Mr. Caborn: I think that the hon. Gentleman was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the President of the Board of Trade when the dome was discussed at length, and I fully agree that all the mistakes were made then. That apart, it is a great privilege for a country to host the Olympics so, if we make a bid, we will approach it seriously. We have the experience of the Commonwealth games, which were successful but had to be refinanced, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The plans on the bid submitted to the Cabinet will therefore be robust and deliverable. Besides the Commonwealth games, this weekend the International Association of Athletics Federations indoor world athletics championship is taking place in Birmingham, and we will show the world that we are very good at running major international events.
    Jim Knight: Can my right hon. Friend expand on the regional role in any Olympics that may be held here in 2012? In particular, can he confirm what the British Olympic Association has told me—sailing, our most successful Olympic sport, would take place in Weymouth in my constituency; football would go on a tour around the country; and training camps, too, would seek homes all over the country?
    Mr. Caborn: That is exactly what I said a couple of minutes ago. A number of areas need to be explored in relation to how UK Limited can gain from the Olympics. There are already indications that we could get some fairly major economic gain in terms of inward investment and tourism. First, however, we have to make the bid. The Cabinet has not yet made the decision

    7
    to do so, but if we do, we shall set up powerful committees to ensure that all the advantages will be made available both to the regions and to London. I hope that the partnerships that have formed so far across the House and between the political parties will be maintained right up to 2012.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Barry Sheene, who did so much to make his own sport popular, and whose bravery both on and off the track was an inspiration to many people? Does the Minister agree that he demonstrated the power of sport to bring together people and, indeed, nations, and that that makes it all the more important that we should take a decision about the Olympics as soon as possible?
    Mr. Caborn: May I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's words about Barry Sheene? He was a tremendous sports person of the highest calibre. In terms of making the bid, let us be clear that what we are doing now is ensuring that the groundwork will be well covered and well prepared in the event of our making a bid. France has not even decided yet whether to put Paris into the ring. Moscow is about to make a decision, as are New York, possibly Madrid and probably a German city. The bids do not have to be in until July this year, and we want to ensure that what we present to the Cabinet is very good. We do not want to make the mistakes that were made over the dome, we do not necessarily want to go down the route of what happened at the Commonwealth games, and we are definitely not going to recycle Wembley and Picketts Lock. We are now saying that we are going to be strategy-driven rather than events-driven, and the preparation that we are making to present to the Cabinet, will ensure that, if we do make a bid, it will be successful at every stage and we will not get into crisis management.
    Mr. Whittingdale: We obviously understand the pressure on Ministers' diaries and on their time at this particular moment, but it is seven months since the Ove Arup report, four months since the Minister undertook his global tour of Olympic cities, and eight weeks since the Government's own deadline for taking a decision. The Minister has talked about not rushing into anything, and we agree with that, but is there not a danger that the Government are beginning to give an impression of dither and lack of commitment just at the time when our potential competitors are warming up on the starting blocks?
    Mr. Caborn: I was in Copenhagen last week at the world anti-drugs agencies conference, and I spoke to Jacques Rogge of the International Olympic Committee. He, of all people, acknowledges the difficulties that politicians around the world are experiencing at the moment, involving some very serious issues that we hope can be resolved. Indeed, our Prime Minister is at the centre of that international stage, and we hope that he is making a positive contribution. To that extent, I believe that Jacques Rogge understood that the Olympics take second place at this time.
    8

    I reiterate that I have not seen anyone on the starting blocks yet. France has not yet put in a bid for Paris, and others are still considering the issue. When our Secretary of State phoned Jacques Rogge to say that the Cabinet was not going to take a decision a few weeks ago, he told her that he was very impressed by the groundwork that was being done. The Arup report suggested a figure of about £2.3 billion; we have now moved to a figure of £3.6 billion to ensure that all the contingencies that we believe are likely to arise over the next eight or nine years are covered. That is very important indeed.

    Channel Five
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What recent representations she has received regarding the clauses in the Communications Bill on the ownership of Channel Five; and if she will make a statement. [101458]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): We received a number of representations on this subject from television and media companies and from members of the public. By removing ownership rules for Channel Five, we hope that new investment will allow it to grow and to provide more competition in terrestrial broadcasting.
    Mr. Mullin: What is to stop Mr. Murdoch's News Corporation buying up Channel Five and using it, through vigorous cross-promotion in his other assets, as a Trojan horse to overtake ITV as the main commercial channel? If my hon. Friend is unwilling to reinstate the cross-ownership rules, will he at least consider putting the quality standards thresholds that will be expected of Channel Five on the face of the Communications Bill, regardless of who the new owner happens to be?
    Dr. Howells: No. We have spent a great deal of time debating the creature that is to become Ofcom—it will be a powerful regulator. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that there is an anomaly in doing what we are doing with Channel Five, given that, at the moment, Vivendi, Bertelsmann, Berlusconi or any such company may own it. They are all enormous corporations with big interests in American groups, and so on. It is a very outdated idea that, somehow, the arrangements that are in place will prevent Channel Five from remaining a vibrant and good company. I am absolutely convinced that it will grow, whoever owns it, if the regulatory environment is a good one, and we have created the best that we can possibly create.
    Michael Fabricant: Has not Channel Five been underfunded for too long and if News Corporation were to acquire it, would it not provide good funding, as it has already done for Sky One and the Sky sports channels, to provide good programming? The Minister mentioned a number of European media companies that could take over Channel Five, but could not a number of European media porn channels take it over? Rupert Murdoch is far preferable to that.
    Dr. Howells: I am not a paid-up member of the News International glee club, but I will say this to the hon. Gentleman: a lot of parody has been going on over the influence of various groups relating to the ownership of

    9
    television channels and, indeed, of newspapers. There are sufficient controls in the proposed Ofcom, which we are in the business of creating right now, to ensure that abuses such as those the hon. Gentleman mentioned will not take place.
    Mr. John Grogan: Given that the Secretary of State told the Westminster Media Forum that it would be open to Ofcom to ratchet up the public service obligations on Channel Five, are there not advantages for regulatory certainty in introducing a ratchet principle to the Bill, so that any purchaser of Channel Five would know clearly that, if its audience grew, there would be greater obligations to produce programmes, original productions and regional productions?
    Dr. Howells: I rarely disagree with my hon. Friend about anything, but that is a curious question. He is saying that there ought to be so many ratcheting mechanisms acting on Channel Five that nobody would want to buy it and nobody would want to grow it. That is not what Channel Five wants, and it is not what I want. I want Channel Five to flourish and become a real competitor to ITV and every other company broadcasting in this country. I also want it to become a quality broadcaster, which it is starting to do. If it is to achieve that, it will have to find investment from somewhere. Perhaps we ought to discard some of these conspiracy theory scenarios that we are so fond of spouting in this place and understand that broadcasters need investment, just as other companies do.

    Rural Libraries
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What plans she has to encourage local authorities to maintain and develop rural libraries. [101459]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Department recently published a 10-year vision for England's public libraries called "Framework for the Future". It is relevant to rural and urban settings, and draws on examples of good practice in country areas. We are working with Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries and with library authorities to see how they might best deliver that vision. Twenty copies of "Framework for the Future" were sent to each of the 149 authorities in England.
    Mr. Wright:I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and I am pleased to hear that we have that 10-year vision, which is completely different from that of the Tories on Norfolk county council, who recently announced the closure of one of my village libraries—Bradwell—for the princely sum of savings in the first year of £1,700. At the same meeting, they agreed to increase the hospitality budget from £28,000 to £88,000. The comment "booze instead of books" certainly springs to mind.
    Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the Conservatives for that miserly cut and the problems that it will create for the residents of the Bradwell parish council area? Will he also send the Government's support to the parish council, the Women's Institute, the mothers' union and county councillors, which are
    10
    waging a campaign to keep that facility open and endeavouring to ensure that the library in the village of Bradwell has a future?
    Mr. Caborn: My officials inform me that the letter of the law under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 has not been broken, but perhaps the spirit of the law has been. "Booze instead of books" has a ring about it. I hope that all local authorities will take the "Framework for the Future" document seriously. It tries to reposition libraries in the 21st century as major centres of resource to help communities to develop. It does not view libraries in the traditional sense, as they were a decade or more ago. We are trying to upgrade libraries so that they can be a major resource for all communities, whether in rural or urban areas.
    Mr. David Heath:Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who live in country areas have us much interest in and entitlement to a public library service as anyone else? Will he ensure that the extra unit costs of providing small branch libraries and a peripatetic service are recognised in local government settlements? Will he also ensure that small public libraries have broadband, so that they can offer the modern range of services that we want them to provide? At the moment, broadband is not available in my constituency.
    Mr. Caborn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that tremendous investment has been made in the infrastructure of libraries. I believe that 85 per cent. now have access to broadband, and another 13 per cent. have access to the internet in one form or another. Few libraries do not have such access, although I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point. There is a cost factor for rural libraries, but we will look into that. The speed at which we have been able to invest in the library structure to bring it up to date with e-development is considerable by any standards.
    Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend has a great interest and expertise in the rural areas of Yorkshire, and he has just acknowledged the importance of broadband. Will he encourage a greater partnership with the regional development agencies around the country to ensure that there are links with the wider community and with business, so that they can make the most of the library service, which needs to be mobile in sparsely populated areas like mine, in the north York moors?
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend makes a good point. An investment of about £780 million is going into public libraries. The "Framework for the Future" document says that integration is necessary, and I believe that the RDAs should develop libraries in their areas to ensure that greater use can be made of them, especially by small and medium-sized businesses and for learning.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Since they came to power, the Government have systematically rigged the funding of local authorities to shift resources from the rural shire counties to Labour metropolitan areas. It is hardly surprising that rural libraries are all too often the first casualties of

    11
    Government-induced pressure on resources. Given that rural library closures are on the increase, is the Minister content for his Department to preside over this diminishing but none the less priceless resource?
    Mr. Caborn: That is not the case. The present Administration have now brought about fairness in local government financing. We inherited an unfair system of distribution, and now there is fairness. [Laughter.] Conservative Members are disagreeing with that. There has been investment in libraries, and the constructive dialogue with the library service has produced the 10-year vision in "Framework for the Future". That has been accepted by all of them as the right way forward; it will bring the library service into the 21st century. If the authorities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) referred put booze before books, that is a matter for them, and the electorate will make their own decision.

    New Opportunities Fund
    Ms Meg Munn: Which neighbourhoods will be given greater priority in the review of children's play facilities for the New Opportunities Fund. [101460]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): No decisions have yet been made on that. The review is considering the needs of areas that have inadequate play opportunities and groups of children who have limited access to play. A report with recommendations about priorities for play provision will be published in the summer.
    Ms Munn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that the splash programme that took place last summer in areas such as Jordanthorpe and Batemoor was successful in demonstrating that constructive activities for young people can lead to a reduction in crime? I urge him to consider the lessons from that scheme by ensuring that neighbourhoods where there are few resources for play and where family incomes are low, which prevent children from being able regularly to go swimming and to access other more expensive activities, are taken into account in using this money to the maximum benefit.
    Mr. Caborn: I very much agree. I hope that through the summer splash and splash extra programmes we will be able to continue to fund developments, not only over the summer period, but beyond that. They have proved to be an extremely good investment. They have taken young people off the streets and into creative activities, leading to a tremendous reduction in crime. The steering group—which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who has been pushing this very hard—has been active in consultations in the regions, of which there have been nine. He has attended all but one, along with Tim Gill, the director of the Children's Play Council, who has been seconded to the Department to consider the areas in which children's play can be most effective.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister will be aware that the all-party sport and leisure group,
    12
    of which I am deputy chairman, has long-standing concerns about the diminishing number of playing fields and children's play areas. At last week's meeting, the chairman of the National Playing Fields Association pointed out to hon. Members that the Government's much vaunted protection for play areas does not cover children who are under eight and, in addition, of the 202 fields that have been referred to his Department for consultation, permission for sale has been refused in only six cases. I know that the Minister shares my concern about that, so will he look urgently at his scheme's failure to work, especially in relation to the protection of playing fields and play areas for the under-eights?
    Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman paints a gloomy picture, which does not reflect the real world. First, we have introduced the revised PPG17, which is the first time that play areas and playing fields have been brought together in a planning guidance. That guidance, which is very proactive, asks each local authority to carry out a needs assessment of its play facilities.
    As regards the 202 applications, the hon. Gentleman did not inform the House that those applications are often made in order to build a pavilion or other accommodation that would enhance the quality of the play area. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are challenging that, so I shall give an example. A rugby club that had several pitches but no proper changing facilities made an application that we approved, which was regarded as the closure, or part closure, of a playing area. One must be objective about the matter, not view it only on the basis of statistics.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: As part of the review, does my right hon. Friend have plans to consult the Welsh Assembly Government, and can he tell us how long the review is likely to take?
    Mr. Caborn: In terms of the Welsh Assembly, the answer is yes. The planning guidance covers Wales, so it has to comply with PPG17. I hope that local authorities in Wales will respond positively.
    Mr. John Greenway: How many responses did the Minister's Department receive in support of the idea of merging the New Opportunities Fund with the community fund? Is it not now obvious that the public have rumbled that NOF money is substituting Government funds for projects that should be paid for by the taxpayer? Would it not make more sense if the Government redirected more funding to the original good causes, such as the community fund and the sports lottery fund, which are better placed to make independent assessments about play and sports projects that would command the support of lottery players?
    Mr. Caborn: We have consulted widely on modernising the lottery and the hon. Gentleman will know that we have received a considerable number of submissions.
    Mr. Greenway: How many?
    Mr. Caborn: I do not know the exact number but I will find out and supply the information to the Library.

    13
    We are trying to be more efficient with the New Opportunities Fund and the community fund. We believe that the case has been made for bringing them together. We will put that to Parliament and to all the funding partners. We believe that things can be streamlined and that the central idea of the National Lotteries Act 1993, which was to do with additionality, is maintained today, as it was in 1993.

    Digital and Satellite Broadcasting
    David Taylor: What steps she is taking to strengthen the public service requirements for major providers of commercial digital and satellite broadcasting services. [101462]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Through the Communications Bill, the Government are extending the requirements for subtitling, signing and audio description on digital terrestrial television services to digital cable and digital satellite services. Furthermore, all licensed broadcasters who meet threshold conditions will be required to promote training, equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups, and the fair treatment of disabled persons in relation to employment with them.
    David Taylor: Further to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), should not the Government introduce a ratchet requirement so that as the audience share of commercial, digital and satellite broadcasting services increases, so too should their public service obligation to produce a high standard of quality and content? Otherwise, are we not likely to be submerged in a tide of dire and facile transatlantic pap—plenty of Scooby-Doo, but a paucity of serious drama and substantial documentaries?
    Dr. Howells: I do not agree with a word of that. If my hon. Friend cares to examine the wonderful magazine Broadcast, which I believe is weekly, he will see that the entire top 50 programmes were made in Britain and broadcast on terrestrial channels. Whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, they are the most popular programmes in this country. There is an almost complete dearth of the kinds of programmes that he mentioned—which I understand him to assume are made in America or Australia.
    Kevin Brennan: On the subject of public service requirements on digital television services, can the Minister do anything about the size of the picture that is transmitted on the BBC Parliament channel on the freeview service? It takes up only about a quarter of the screen. At any time, there must be dozens of people around the country who are watching the Parliament channel. They would welcome the opportunity to see hon. Members in full widescreen.
    Dr. Howells: Seeing hon. Members in full widescreen would at least keep children away from touching the screen.

    Tennis
    Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on the extent of tennis practice and tuition in maintained schools. [101465]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): We do not collect detailed data on particular sports in maintained schools. Schools choose the precise activities and sports that they offer their pupils. Tennis may be taught as part of the games element of national curriculum PE; games is one of six areas of activity within the national curriculum PE and is compulsory for all pupils aged between five and 14. Pupils aged from 14 to 16 must choose two of the six areas.
    Mr. Bercow: Frankly, that answer literally oozes complacency. It is nearly 67 years since Britain had a men's singles champion at Wimbledon and nearly 26 years since Britain had a female singles champion at Wimbledon. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the dearth of tennis practice and tuition in schools is a serious problem? What discussions has he had with his hon. and right hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Skills about it? To increase participation in tennis, does the Minister have any plans to play some demonstration games himself?
    Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman ought to reflect on the last 18 years of the period that he describes, which were under his party's Administration. That was when the seeds of rot were sown. As the hon. Gentleman knows, since coming to power we have invested in sports colleges—of which we will be rolling out 400—and in 3,000 school sports co-ordinators. The Lawn Tennis Association has acknowledged and welcomed all of that. We have just given £9.3 million to the LTA to develop the club structure for tennis, along the lines of what we have done with football, rugby and other sports. We are having to clear up 18 years of mismanagement in sport and we are doing so very successfully indeed. If ever we go out of office, we will have champions—unlike Conservative Members, who undermined our champions.

    Regional Museums
    Joyce Quin: What plans she has for the development of regional museums. [101466]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): We will be providing £70 million for regional museums from this year until 2005–06, which will represent a 200 per cent. increase in central Government funding by the end of the spending review period. The funds will be used to modernise and improve the quality of regional museums' services. Extra funding will also be made available to the national museums to enable them to work in partnership with regional museums. Additionally, there will be funds from the Department for Education and Skills to support museum education projects.
    Joyce Quin: I welcome that news and the fact that Tyne and Wear Museums is one of the new pathfinder

    15
    museum hubs. Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Library has made arrangements to show facsimile versions of the Lindisfarne gospels in two locations in the north-east, in Durham and on Lindisfarne? Although that is welcome, can he reassure me that that does not preclude the originals being on display in the region, at least from time to time and, hopefully, permanently, because that would give a big boost to the region's tourism industry and its economy generally?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that it must be a priority for the museums and our Department to work that out. I have long believed that we should make far greater use of travelling exhibitions of some of the great treasures that are held in our national museums I am sure that that would benefit people who live in all parts of the country.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Employment Direct Ives
    Andrew Selous: To ask the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what recent representations the Church Commissioners have received concerning European Union employment directives as they affect churches.[101626]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): The Commissioners have received no representations. The Archbishops Council has had extensive conversations with the Department of Trade and Industry about the proposed implementation of the directives on employment and race agreed in the 2000 document, as set out in "Towards Equality and Diversity".
    Andrew Selous: I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. Does he share the concern expressed to me by a number of my local clergy that they may be forced to employ people who are hostile to the aims of their churches? Does he also agree that that could be a problem for all faiths, not just for the Church of England?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. The Archbishops Council responded to the document on employment and race in January. I accept that the Church faces questions on occupation or employment. The hon. Gentleman and others can take up questions on doctrine with the Archbishops Council. I shall be glad to draw any comments or fears that he has to its attention.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the directives impinge not merely on parish churches, but on a wider range of organisations that the Church Commissioners support? Although it would be quite wrong to expect the Labour party to employ a card-carrying Conservative, church
    16
    organisations are being expected to employ people who do not necessarily share their fundamental beliefs. Does he accept that analogy?
    Mr. Bell: I would be surprised if the Church of England employed, or gave gainful occupation to, clergy who do not support the doctrines of the Church. There may be diverse differences on what that doctrine should be. The Church Commissioners would not be involved in those arguments, but I shall be glad to draw the hon. Gentleman's worries to the Archbishops Council.
    Angela Eagle: May I caution my hon. Friend not to get too worried about that? As someone who was around when the directives were negotiated, I know that great protections are in place. Those who think that churches can be exempt from discrimination legislation and employment protection do the reputation of their churches no good. Will he take it from me that the directives allow for the exceptions that have been outlined?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the assistance of my hon. Friend on the matter and for the knowledge that she brings to the subject. Overall, the Church is concerned about so-called employment rights or occupation rights. That is seen in its reference to the Department of Trade and Industry discussion document on employment terms. We as a Church wish to observe good practice in the treatment of our clergy and we are moving rapidly to some consultation conclusions in that regard.

    Lichfield Cathedral
    Michael Fabricant: To ask the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if the commissioners will visit Lichfield cathedral in order to discuss the maintenance programme for the fabric of the building. [101627]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): As the Association of English Cathedrals maintains the dialogue with English Heritage on matters of fabric funding, the commissioners keep a watchful eye on that. The Church Commissioners are well aware of the tireless work at Lichfield and other cathedrals to meet the continuing challenges of maintaining these much loved buildings.
    Michael Fabricant: May I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit Lichfield cathedral, perhaps during the period beginning 1 July, when we have our international arts festival, some of which is held in the cathedral and some of which will be held in our new Garrick theatre? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have just had to cough up £2.5million for a new organ, that we will have to find about £3 million to restore the Flemish glass in the cathedral, that it is a grade 1 listed building more than 800 years old, and that hardly any money is available from the Government to support the building? Is it not

    17
    right that the hon. Gentleman should meet the administrators of Lichfield cathedral to discuss alternative ways of raising funds?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he makes me an offer that I cannot refuse. I will be happy to attend the Lichfield arts festival in July. I am aware that it is an internationally renowned festival and that it has broadcasts on BBC Radio 3, and I wish the festival well. I shall be happy to meet the administrators, so long as the hon. Gentleman does not require me to take a cheque for £2.5 million in my pocket.

    Church of England Finances
    David Taylor: To ask the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the impact on the recruitment to the stipendiary ministry of the financial position of the Church of England. [101628]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell):The Church Commissioners have made no assessment in those terms. The Church trains all candidates whose call to ministry is affirmed through the selection process, without imposing financial limitations. The majority of the funds needed to support the Church's ministry come from the generous giving of its members, and training is funded from this source.
    David Taylor: Is it not the case that the amount of funds available per stipendiary minister varies widely from diocese to diocese? Is my hon. Friend concerned that in some rural dioceses, and in some inner-city ones, the cash available to recruit and appoint talented and well motivated men and women to the stipendiary ministry is disappearing fast? Does he fear that issues related to that will arise in the medium term?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. May I say at the outset that we in the Church are very grateful for the giving that takes place throughout the country in different dioceses, both rural and urban? He will be aware that we have 9,500 stipendiary ministers engaged in the diocesan and parochial ministry. Although there are concerns about how they may be funded in the future, we are grateful for the giving by our members and by people who go to church on a Sunday. We hope to meet any concerns that my hon. Friend has in respect of rural and urban area ministries.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Is it not a fact that the Church Commissioners make a significant, substantial contribution towards clergy pay and pensions? If they are to continue to do so, is it not equally obvious that they must be encouraged to make the best possible returns on their assets, within what I would describe as self-regulated ethical constraints?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, we have an ethical policy in the Church in relation to our investments. In 2001, the Commissioners provided some £160 million for the support of the Church. That was 20 per cent. of the Church's total expenditure of about £800 million. It is not often
    18
    understood just how much money goes into the Church to meet its obligations to the clergy, to pensions, to the fabric of our cathedrals and even, with the help of the Government, for redundant churches.

  The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE ON THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

    Postal Ballots
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What assessment the commission has made of the likely effect of all-postal ballots for referendums. [101629]
    Mrs. Angela Browning: On this occasion, I have been asked to reply on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who apologises for not being in the House this afternoon. The Electoral Commission has made no such assessment.
    Mr. Bryant: I thank the hon. Lady for that non-answer. I wonder whether she has noticed that a referendum in Malta this weekend had a 92 per cent. turnout and a very successful yes vote, about which all Labour Members are clearly delighted, despite several Conservative Members of the European Parliament campaigning against the yes vote for Malta to join the European Union. Would not it he a good idea for the Electoral Commission to consider the effect of postal ballots in advance of the euro referendum that we are likely to have later this year, so that it can recommend an all-postal ballot and we can get a really good yes result?
    Mrs. Browning: If I can add flesh to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Gentleman, he will be aware that currently there is no provision in law for any UK national or regional referendum to be conducted by all-postal ballot. For mayoral referendums, the law provides that an all-postal ballot may be used at the discretion of the local authority. If he has an interest in such a ballot for other types of election, such as European elections, he may care to try asking a question of the Lord Chancellor's Department, which will be in a position to decide whether the House could make such a change in the law.

    Voting Age
    Bob Spink: What representations have been made to the commission regarding the reduction in age of voting to 16. [101630]
    Mrs. Angela Browning: The commission has received representations directly from the votes at 16 campaign. It is also aware that a number

    19
    of parliamentarians, political parties and independent bodies established to look into democratic engagement have supported moves to reduce the voting age to 16.
    Bob Spink: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that she shares with me an appreciation of the importance of encouraging young people to participate in the voting process. Will she share with the House the strategies that the commission is adopting to increase the participation rate? Does she agree that while reduction of the voting age is an important matter, it should be considered very carefully?
    Mrs. Browning: I am happy to advise my hon. Friend that the commission has been involved closely with the work led by the Government's children and young people's unit to examine the cause of political disengagement among young people, and to find solutions to these problems. The commission now chairs a group of non-governmental organisations involved in encouraging participation by young people, the main focus of which is to ensure that recommendations from the CYPU report are taken forward by those to whom they are directed. The commission also published in July 2002 the results of a research project analysing the factors motivating young people in their electoral behaviour, and will continue to target young people through its advertising and PR campaigns and wider outreach programmes.
    John Cryer: I acknowledge what the hon. Lady said. Does she agree that when 16 and 17-year-olds can pay taxes, work, pay national insurance and join the armed forces, there can be no logical reason why they cannot vote, too?
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, on 27 February, the commission announced the start of work on a review of the minimum age for voting and candidacy in public elections in the United Kingdom. The timetable for that review envisages a period of consultation over the summer of 2003, with publication of a final report, with recommendations, in early 2004. The hon. Gentleman
    20
    may want to make the point that he has made to the House this afternoon in response to that consultation—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Can we have some order in the House?

    Party Funding Legislation
    Martin Linton: What discussions he has had with the chairman of the Electoral Commission on his current review of party funding legislation. [101631]
    Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has had no discussions with the chairman of the Electoral Commission about that matter.
    Martin Linton: May I ask the hon. Lady to ask her hon. Friend to have some discussions with the commission chairman about that? When she does so, will she urge him to give priority to lower spending limits for elections, a cap on donations, and a greater degree of support for political parties in the work that they do that is not directly political, such as training, international work and youth work? Will she assure him that there will be cross-party support on the issue, given that the Conservative party has received more money from public funds than it has in cash donations in the latest quarter, according to Electoral Commission figures—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question.
    Mrs. Browning: I think that I have got the hon. Gentleman's drift, Mr. Speaker.
    The hon. Gentleman will understand that, in fact, the whole Committee, not just my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), will have those discussions with the Electoral Commission, but I hope that he will be encouraged to know—this picks up several of the issues that he raises—that the commission has two reviews under way: a short review of electoral reform and the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, which will be completed in May, and a more root-and-branch review of party funding, which will report by the first quarter of 2004.

Iraq and Israel/Palestine
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Iraq and Israel/Palestine.
On Friday last, 7 March, I attended a ministerial meeting of the Security Council in New York—the fourth such meeting since late January. I have placed in the Library copies of the chief inspector's latest reports, together with the text of the speech that I gave to the Council, and a copy of the amended second resolution of which the United Kingdom is a co-signatory.
The Security Council's meeting on Friday took place four months after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, which gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with a series of disarmament obligations. Significantly, during the hours of intensive debate last Friday, not a single speaker claimed that Iraq was in compliance with those obligations; neither did a single speaker deny that Iraq has been in flagrant breach of international law for the past 12 years.
Dr. el-Baradei's and Dr. Blix's reports were about the continuing work of the inspectors. As I did in New York last Friday. I should like to pay tribute to them and their teams for their work in very difficult circumstances.
First, let me deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency. As the House will be aware, nuclear facilities are intrinsically more difficult to construct and less easy to conceal than equivalent facilities for producing biological or chemical weapons. Dr. el-Baradei reported on Friday last that
"after three months of intrusive inspections, the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."
That is welcome.
On UNMOVIC on the other hand, Dr. Blix reported movement in some limited areas: for example, the partial destruction of prohibited al-Samoud missiles. That is, however, only the tip of the iceberg of Iraq's illegal weapons programme. The full extent of that iceberg was revealed in a document compiled by UNMOVIC entitled "Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes", which was made publicly available late on 7 March. I have also placed copies of that document in the Library. I commend it to all Members. It sets out, in 173 pages of painstaking detail, the terrible nature of the weapons that Saddam has sought with such determination to develop. It is a chilling catalogue of evasion, deceit and feigning co-operation while in reality pursuing concealment.
The sheer scale of Iraq's efforts to develop those weapons and to hide them can be grasped only by reading the whole document, as I have done. But, from the 29 separate sets of unresolved issues, let me give the House just one illustration: anthrax—easily inhaled and the death rate for untreated victims may be 90 per cent. or more. Only tiny amounts are needed to inflict widespread casualties. Contrary to Iraqi assertions, the inspectors found evidence of anthrax where Iraq had declared there was none. Again, contrary to Iraqi assertions, UNMOVIC believes there is a strong
22
presumption that some 10,000 litres of anthrax were not destroyed in the early 1990s and may still exist. Iraq also possesses the technoalogy and materials to allow it to return swiftly to the pre-1991 production levels for anthrax.
Let me now deal with the issues of inspections and more time. I fully recognise the temptation to believe that the inspections are working and all that is needed is more time. But Saddam Hussein is a master of playing for time. Frankly, as anyone can see from reading the UNMOVIC document, to continue inspections with no firm end date will not achieve the disarmament required by the Security Council. This is, however, the suggestion in the recent memorandum from France, Germany and Russia. As the memorandum itself acknowledges, that cannot be achieved without the fulfilment of a prior condition—namely, Iraq's full, active and immediate co-operation.
Once more last Friday, the Iraqi permanent representative to the United Nations claimed that Iraq had no more weapons of mass destruction. It is the same old refrain that we have heard from the regime for the past 12 years. Yet whenever the inspectors have caught the regime out, it has first protested, then conceded that narrow point, but then mendaciously claimed that there are no more.
The choice before us is whether we stand firm in pursuing our objective of disarmament or settle for a policy that, in truth, allows Saddam to rebuild his arsenal under cover of just enough co-operation to keep the inspectors tied down for years to come. We should not deceive ourselves. The alternative proposals before the Security Council amount to a return to the failed policy of so-called containment. But the truth is that containment can never bring disarmament, nor is it the policy of the United Nations as expressed in resolution 1441 and in all the preceding resolutions going back to 1991.
Dr. Blix reported on some further recent activity by Iraq in respect mainly of the al-Samoud missiles. We must ask: what has caused this further recent activity, albeit limited as it is? It is not our policy that has changed, nor international law, nor the degree of diplomatic pressure. The reality is that the only thing that has changed has been the willingness of the United States and the United Kingdom to deploy their armed forces for the sake of achieving the objective very clearly set out by the United Nations. The other reality is that Saddam responds only to pressure. The clear conclusion to draw from this is that we must further increase the pressure on him. We have to put him to the test clearly laid down by the United Nations.
The Government have made clear all along their desire to secure a peaceful outcome to this crisis. It is for this reason that I took the initiative in the Security Council last Friday to circulate a revised version of the UK-US-Spain draft second resolution. This specifies a further period beyond the adoption of the resolution for Iraq to take the final opportunity to disarm. Negotiations on its important detail have continued over the weekend and again this morning. We are examining whether a list of defined tests for Iraqi compliance would be useful in helping the Security Council to come to a judgment.

23
What we are proposing is eminently reasonable. We are not expecting Saddam to have disarmed in a week or so—let me make that absolutely clear, as I did last Friday—but we are expecting the Iraqi regime to demonstrate by that time the full, unconditional, immediate and active co-operation demanded of it by successive UN Security Council resolutions since 1991. There is no reason whatever why, within a matter of days, Iraq cannot make clear its desire fully and actively to co-operate. There is no reason at all.
I profoundly hope that the Iraqi regime will, even at this late stage, seize the chance to disarm peacefully. The only other peaceful alternative would be for Saddam Hussein to heed the calls of a number of other Arab leaders for him to go into exile and to hand over to a new leadership prepared to conform with the Security Council's demands. However, if he refuses to co-operate, the Security Council has to face up to its clear responsibilities under the United Nations charter.
In the event that military action proves necessary, the international community will have, among many other duties, a duty to build a secure, prosperous future for the Iraqi people. Last Thursday, I met the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, in New York to discuss the humanitarian position and UN involvement in any reconstruction of Iraq. At that meeting, I proposed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the UN should take the lead role in co-ordinating international efforts to rebuild Iraq, and that they should be underpinned by a clear UN mandate.
As the crisis enters this phase, there are fears that, in securing Iraq's compliance with international law, we may exacerbate tensions elsewhere in the region. Emotions are understandably inflamed by the position in Israel and the occupied territories, where, tragically, there appears to be no end to the spiral of killings. Since September 2000, more than 2,300 Palestinians and more than 700 Israelis have been killed. We mourn the loss of life on all sides.
However, we cannot allow the cycle of violence to destroy hope for a better future. There is ground for optimism. The international community today shares our vision of a lasting settlement as set out in a series of Security Council resolutions for a viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 boundaries, and an Israeli state free from terror, secure in its borders and recognised by the Arab world.
We are actively encouraging both sides to fulfil their obligations. We are playing a full part in the international effort to help the Palestinian Authority to do more to build democratic institutions and a sound civil administration. As hon. Members know, I chaired a meeting in London on 14 January to discuss those issues with Palestinian leaders. It was unfortunate that that happened through video link because they were prevented from travelling outside the occupied territories. The discussions also included representatives from the region and the Quartet—the UN, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United States.
The United Kingdom hosted further meetings, which were attended by Palestinian representatives in person, between 18 and 20 February. I have spoken to
24
Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority twice in the past seven days. I greatly welcome his decision to nominate Abu Mazen, who is also known as Mahmoud Abbas, to the post of Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. I hope that the Palestinian legislative council approves that nomination.
Those who know Abu Mazen realise that he has a fine track record in peace negotiations with Israel and that he will lead the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinians well as putative Prime Minister. We hope that that appointment and other reform measures by the Palestinian Authority will help to restore a meaningful peace process, as set out in the road map that the Quartet devised.
Likewise, we look to Mr. Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, and his new team of Ministers to work with the international community in restoring hopes for peace. I shall talk to the new Israeli Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, tomorrow.
A lasting settlement in the middle east will remove one great threat to security in the region and the wider world. In confronting the danger from Iraq's weapons, the UN can remove another great threat. We must not let Saddam turn his "final opportunity" to disarm, as set out in resolution 1441, into endless opportunities to delay. The future not only of the region but of UN authority is at stake.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it. It is a welcome report from last Friday, but I am sure he agrees that it cannot be regarded as a substitute for a proper debate and a vote.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Israel and Palestine. We also welcome the current constitutional changes that the Palestinian Authority is making. However, if the changes are to have a beneficial effect on the peace process, Mr. Arafat's future role should be more ceremonial and less politically engaged. That must be matched on the Israeli side by an end to settlement activity and a genuine readiness to engage in negotiation. We must also look for a cessation of violence on all sides, and press the Israeli Government to exercise maximum restraint in the occupied territories at this time. If the Muslim world is truly to believe that our argument with Saddam Hussein is not a fight with Islam, we must demonstrate that we mean what we say about pursuing two states west of the Jordan, a secure Israel and a viable Palestine. We would welcome immediate American diplomatic engagement to revive that process.
The Iraq situation outlined by the Foreign Secretary is grim. I have to say to him that many serious questions and doubts remain in the country as to whether the case for action has been made. I lay that at the door of the Government because they are the possessor of the information that can be deployed and I say earnestly that I hope that he will use the days that may remain before any action may take place to ensure that that case continues to be made and strongly so. He mentioned the written report from Dr. Blix that was published late last Friday. He gave us one example and I hope that he will take the opportunity in the days ahead to produce more of that information for the British people to absorb.

25
On Friday, Dr. Blix confirmed again that Saddam Hussein was not complying completely and immediately with resolution 1441 and that he remained in breach of it. There has been some grudging compliance, but will the Foreign Secretary again confirm that that is not the result of any change in the attitude of Saddam Hussein? That grudging compliance has resulted from the international community sending a clear and united message of its resolve to enforce resolution 1441 one way or another. Does he agree that, if there is a recklessness to be considered in the present context, it is in the sending out of confused and divided messages that allow Saddam Hussein once again to play for time and, in the end, to continue to re-arm?
The Foreign Secretary referred to Dr. el-Baradei's findings. Does he agree with those findings, and how do they sit with his previous statements, which suggested that there was a rather different situation in relation to the development of nuclear weapons? The written evidence presented to the Security Council is, as he says, chilling. I read a report this morning that it included information about a large undeclared unmanned aircraft. Will he explain what he knows about that and what danger that device would pose?
There has been talk of giving Saddam more time. Dr. Blix suggested that disarmament might take months not weeks. Am I not right in recollecting that, in the case of South Africa, once agreement to disarm had been reached with the United Nations, it was carried out not in months, but in a matter of days? Would that not also be the case if Saddam Hussein agreed proactively to disarm as he is required to do by resolution 1441?
In the event of an unreasonable veto on the second resolution, I believe that the Government's position has been made clear, but what would be their position in the event of, say, vetoes from three permanent members? Have the Government fully considered the long-term implications of such a situation or, indeed, of failing to achieve a majority for a second resolution at all? Those questions may be as yet unresolved, but the House has a right to share some of the Government's thinking on those matters.
The draft resolution introduces a deadline. I noticed that the Foreign Secretary did not mention what that deadline was; he was rather coy about mentioning a date. Will he confirm that the date remains what we were told it was last Friday? Is he suggesting that if Iraq has not fully complied with that deadline, military action will automatically follow? If so, who will assess whether that compliance has been effected?
I note the Foreign Secretary's meeting with Kofi Annan to discuss UN involvement in post-Saddam Iraq and I welcome it. What arrangements are being made in practice for urgent humanitarian assistance? What arrangements are there to ensure that a truly representative Administration is ready to take over in Iraq? Is he suggesting—this is quite important—that those arrangements will be underpinned by a United Nations mandate?
Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to disarm. That final opportunity cannot be open-ended, which is why we support the second resolution. However, we continue to demand that this House must have a substantive say on the outcome. Will the Foreign Secretary assure us that the vote in this
26
House will not take place until the Security Council itself has voted, so that we will know what we are being asked to vote for or against?
Let us hope that even at this late hour, Saddam Hussein will still see sense and make all this unnecessary; but if he does not, we must not falter in our resolve.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for my statement. I have done my best throughout this crisis to keep the House fully and immediately informed, and I shall continue to do so. Of course, I accept that a statement is no substitute for a debate or a vote.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman correctly said about this not appearing to be a "fight with Islam". We are completely committed to doing everything that we can to secure an early settlement of the terrible conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I want to see early publication of the road map that was agreed before Christmas, and this morning I discussed that issue, among others, with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
It cannot be repeated often enough that all the conflicts in which British forces and the United Nations have been involved over the past 12 years happen to have been ones in which the victims of aggression were people of the Islamic faith and the people who were saved from that aggression were people of the Islamic faith. If, God forbid, force proves to be necessary in the Iraqi crisis, the same will be true in this case.
We look forward to Iraq's compliance. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that when the UN Security Council is united in its message, there is a much higher chance of securing Iraq's compliance than there is when differences of opinion are expressed. He asked me about the report made by Dr. el-Baradei last Friday. I described the main conclusion of that report and said that I welcomed it. The whole point of the inspections was to raise concerns that we felt justified in raising. Dr. el-Baradei pointed out that he has not yet signed off the dossier, but I thought it only right to give the House the flavour of the overall burden of his report.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the references to unmanned vehicles, or UAVs as they are known. Those were late insertions into the 173-page report by Dr. Blix, which was published late last Friday. The 167-page version, which I read last week, did not include those references, which is why I did not refer to the matter at the Security Council. Page 14 of the longer version states:
"Recent inspections have revealed the existence of a drone with a wingspan of 7.45 metres that has not been declared by Iraq. Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone had been test-flown. Further inspection is required to establish the actual specification and capabilities of these RPVs and whether Iraq has UAVs / RPVs that exceed the 150 kilometres limit as we believe they do."
The vehicles may also have a facility for launching chemical and biological weapons.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about a second resolution. We have made it clear throughout that we want a second resolution for political reasons, because a consensus is required, if we can achieve it, for any military action. On the legal basis for that, it should be pointed out that resolution 1441 does not require a second resolution.

27
That issue was discussed ad nauseam in the eight weeks of negotiation for resolution 1441. France and others proposed a clause requiring us to go back to the Security Council for a second resolution, and they voluntarily dropped that proposal. In place of that, France agreed to paragraphs 4, 11, 12 and 13, which state that where there is a material breach—as plainly there already is, as the Council made clear last Friday—that can lead, within resolution 1441, to Iraq having to suffer serious consequences for its failure to meet its obligations.
Mr. Michael Moore: Those on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement, and I am grateful to have received a copy in advance.
The pressure on Saddam Hussein and his regime to disarm is intense, and progress is being made. As the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, stated on Friday, the destruction of missiles constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament. UNMOVIC is now drafting a work programme to tackle the unresolved disarmament issues, as Dr. Blix puts it. Clearly the weapons inspectors believe that they still have a worthwhile job to do, and they need more time to do it. Will the Foreign Secretary accept that there are still diplomatic and political options open to the international community and that the military agenda must not dictate the calendar for inspections? Will he confirm that he believes that war should be the last resort, based on clear objectives and an assessment of the likely consequences?
Nowhere will that be more important than in the middle east. We all seek an end to the sickening cycle of violence and we applaud the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary's efforts to make progress, but will the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that steps to bring peace to the middle east and elsewhere will be damaged if, in prosecuting the case against Iraq, we threaten to ignore the United Nations and in so doing undermine the principles of international law in whose name we act?
Mr. Straw: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He is entirely right to say that the pressure is intense, but that raises the question of why it is intense. I wonder what would have happened if there had been Liberal Democrat pressure—if that is not an oxymoron. There is a blunt reality about why inspections are now working and no one must resile from it. In last Friday's report, as in his previous reports, Dr. Blix made it absolutely clear when he spoke of "serious outside pressure". Yes, the pressure is serious; it is just outside, in Kuwait; it is the armed forces. It is important that the hon. Gentleman and his party understand that.
Of course war is a last resort—war should always be a last resort. I believe that that is the sentiment of every single Member of this House, whatever their party. No one has a monopoly of wisdom or of morality on this issue.
As for steps to bring peace to the middle east, I agree that we must not be diverted from our efforts to ensure peace in the middle east between the Israelis and the
28
Palestinians as we have to make difficult decisions on Iraq. The purpose of my making a statement today on the twin subjects of Iraq and Israel/Palestine is to emphasise to the House, the country and the region our profound commitment to pursue peace in the middle east in any event. The matter is urgent. It would be urgent without Iraq, and it becomes even more urgent with Iraq. That is a point that I continue to emphasise with our American friends.
As for ignoring the United Nations, that is a canard—it is totally untrue. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has moved heaven and earth to ensure that the whole issue of Iraq is dealt with through the United Nations. It was he more than anyone else who ensured that the process of negotiation through the United Nations began in August and September and led to a satisfactory conclusion; and he, with many Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government, is seeking to ensure that there is a proper conclusion now.
Everybody in the United Nations has responsibilities under the charter—not only the United States and the United Kingdom among the permanent members, but all the other permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council, all of whom have signed up to the charter, including chapter 7, which spells out that sometimes force is necessary where there is defiance of the clear obligations under chapter 7. In the present case, force may indeed be necessary.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Does the Foreign Secretary recall the statement of the French Foreign Minister that threats of force and diplomacy have brought Saddam Hussein to partial compliance? Is it not odd that the French now seek to block a final resolution under which diplomacy and the threat of force would converge, so that Saddam Hussein knew once and for all that, in the interests of Iraq and of the Iraqi people, he must comply fully?
Mr. Straw: I agree. Both diplomacy and a credible, but therefore rising, threat of force are needed. However, it is the credible threat of force that is making the difference. This is our best and only opportunity to resolve the issue in a peaceful way.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for a statement that was the reverse of reckless. Is he aware that many of us who supported, without a United Nations resolution, action in the former Yugoslavia, believe that action is even more justified in this case?
Mr. Straw: I note what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I have already made clear our view about the legal base that is provided by resolution 1441, going back to resolutions 687 and 678. However, we continue to follow the route that we have outlined of securing a new consensus within the Security Council because it gives us a greater opportunity of resolving the issue in a peaceful way.
Mr. Michael ClaphamI listened with interest to my right hon. Friend's reply to the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), on the question of the United Nations

29
second resolution. Given the arm twisting that we know is going on at the UN, could a second resolution ever give legitimacy to action? Does my right hon. Friend not think that the way forward, given that situation, is that we should be giving more time to Hans Blix and the inspectors?
Mr. Straw: It just happens that in international diplomacy there are some robust discussions. I am willing to speculate that my good friend Dominique de Villepin, who is currently perambulating round Africa, to Cameroon, Angola and Guinea, to take three countries at random—[Laughter]—is not just having a cafe and a little conversation with those he is meeting. I suspect he is reminding them about their loyalty to francophone Africa and how that loyalty can be both proved and disproved.
On the issue of time, if Iraq comes into compliance, and how it can do so realistically is set out clearly in the document, it can have all the time in the world, just as happened with the inspections in South Africa. Actually, it would not take very long. But if Iraq does not come into compliance, time is irrelevant. There will be time after time, and we will be back again having to face a decision about compliance. It is compliance first and then time, not the other way round.
Mr. John Maples: I think that the Foreign Secretary knows that I support the Government's policy on Iraq, but like many people I am deeply worried about the damage that it appears to be doing to the western Alliance. We saw the difficulties in the run-up to UN Security Council resolution 1441. These things seem to have become much more difficult now with, as the right hon. Gentleman has described, the French Foreign Minister drumming up opposition to a resolution proposed by two of France's supposed main allies. At one level, I suppose that the Foreign Secretary would say that that is just French mischief-making, but is it not also a demonstration of a failure of diplomacy? Should we not have put much more effort earlier into building the coalition diplomatically before the policy was launched? What are the right hon. Gentleman and the British Government doing to rescue the damage that is being done to the western Alliance?
Mr. Straw: We are putting a great deal of effort into that. I greatly regret the impasse that so far has been reached. I still hope that we may be able to avoid it. However, on 8 November last, after intense negotiations, we achieved a 15-0 result on resolution 1441. The words meant what they said then, and they mean what they say today.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Dr. el-Baradei's report and the question of uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, Dr. el-Baradei said that
"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents—which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger—are in fact not authentic."
30
What does the Foreign Office know about "not authentic" documents?
Mr. Straw: What I would say is this—the idea of putting faith in inspectors is to put faith in inspectors. There were perfectly legitimate reasons—
Mr. Dalyell: Answer the question.
Mr. Straw: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I am answering the question. There were perfectly legitimate reasons for having the greatest suspicion about the possibility of Iraq having a continuing nuclear programme. After all, I remind my hon. Friend that Iraq did not exactly volunteer the existence of its nuclear programme in 1991 and onwards. It took defections before it did so. Dr. e1-Baradei's report goes on to say:
"However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence, if it emerges, relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials."
And they have not closed the dossier either.
Mr. David Tredinnick: When the Prime Minister came before the Liaison Committee recently, I asked him about the situation in Iraq if there was a war and what British forces would be doing afterwards. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that it is quite likely that British forces would assume a disproportionate amount of the burden in a post-war Iraq? Can he further confirm that it is a commonly held view that one of the greatest failings of this Government has been their inability to sell their policy on Iraq to the people and to their Back Benchers?
Mr. Straw: British forces, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has reminded me—I apologise, as I did not hear the end of the hon. Gentleman's question—will of course be available to share the burden of securing the peace as well as the burden of fighting in any military action that is required.
James Purnell: I welcome the work that the Foreign Secretary continues to do on the middle east peace process, particularly his commitment to security as well as a viable state for the Palestinians. However, does he agree that a more democratic regime in Iraq, given Saddam Hussein's role in funding suicide bombing, would make peace in the middle east more likely, not less likely?
Mr. Straw: I agree absolutely. While there has been speculation about the extent to which the Iraqi regime funds some terrorist organisations, there is no doubt at all about the fact that it has been funding and training rejectionist terrorist regimes operating in Israel and the occupied territories.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Despite the damage that the USA and the Government have already inflicted on the United Nations and the European Union, the Foreign Secretary now claims to be going down the United Nations route. Does that mean that he has dropped the concept of an unreasonable veto?
Mr. Straw: Oh God! I do not know what to say to the hon. Lady except that sometimes I give up with the

31
Liberal Democrats. I just say through you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not know what she thinks we have been doing for the past five months if not going down the United Nations route.
David Winnick: If war comes, it will be the responsibility of Saddam Hussein, but is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would wish to see the United States play an active role in a peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis leading to a viable Palestinian state—a state no less viable than Israel itself? Is the United States willing to play such a role?
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the United States is willing to play such a role, but we wish to continue—I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this—to push the United States for the earlier publication of the road map, which is in the interests of the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as wider security in the region.
Mr. John Baron: What is the Foreign Secretary's response to the increasing weight of legal opinion, both at home and abroad, that suggests that there is little that resolution 1441 in its own right can do to justify war against Iraq?
Mr. Straw: I have already given a detailed response in which I referred to 1441, going back to 687 and 678. I should also like to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will always act, have always acted, and continue always to act within their obligations in international law. Nothing that we do will be contrary to those obligations.
Andrew Mackinlay: Can I take the Foreign Secretary back to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) a few moments ago? Can I tell my right hon. Friend, as I did in the Foreign Affairs Committee the other week, that he is too generous to the United States., which is being tardy in relation to the Quartet's road map on the resolution of the conflict between Palestine and Israel? We must ask him to use his good efforts and contacts to make it abundantly clear that the House of Commons expects the United States to get a move on and be proactive, as it is not at the moment. Finally, all of us who support and sustain the Front Bench believe in the basic elementary concept in the British constitution of Cabinet collective responsibility, and I hope that he will take that back to his right hon. Friends—there must be no more of the nonsense that we had last night on the radio.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Straw: Thank you very much. I agree with my hon. Friend's last point, and I also agree with his first point. I do not think that I am being too generous to the United States. I am sometimes too generous to the Liberal Democrats, but that is a different matter. It is important that there should be maximum understanding in Washington about the impatience of
32
Members on both sides of the House and in all parties for the road map to be published and I shall be very happy to pass that point on.
Mr. Robert Walter: The House will be pleased that the Foreign Secretary had discussions with the Secretary-General on the humanitarian consequences. Sixty per cent. of the Iraqi people are totally dependent for their food on the oil-for-food programme, which costs about $5 billion in any six-month period. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us who is going to feed the Iraqi people following the outbreak of a conflict, if there is no oil to pay for the food and no Iraqi Government to distribute it?
Mr. Straw: The Iraqi people will be fed, let me make that clear. There is money in the escrow accounts in the United Nations to pay for that. This has been a matter of the most intense discussion in Washington by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, by me and by many others, to ensure the absolute imperative that, while the conflict lasts, the Iraqi people are properly fed. The fact that 60 per cent. of them are dependent on the oil-for-food programme is but one further indication of the desperate nature of this regime.
Mr. George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that for many Labour Members—and, indeed, for many people in the country—the key to unlocking the support for military intervention in Iraq is a second UN resolution? Does he also accept that if there are to be exceptional circumstances, it will be necessary that everyone fully understands exactly what those circumstances are and why they are important? I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could give the House an undertaking on that.
Mr. Straw: I would say to my hon. Friend, whose position on this matter I greatly respect, that of course I understand the great preference that we all have for a second resolution, and the political desirability of such a resolution, because it would represent clear consensus in the international community. I have dealt with the issue of the legal base. What I want to aim for is the passing of that second resolution, and for that reason—with respect to my hon. Friend—I do not want to get drawn into issues of where we go. It might be helpful if I point out that the position adopted by Her Majesty's Government is identical to the position adopted by the Labour party in a statement by the relevant policy commission dated 27 January.
Mr. Mark Simmonds: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that there will be a debate and a vote on a substantive motion immediately after the vote of the UN Security Council on the second resolution?
Mr. Straw: Yes. If there is a vote and the matter comes to a conclusion, I am sure that the usual channels will arrange that. For the record, I enter the usual caveat that the only circumstances in which that could not take place would be if we thought that the safety of our troops would be put at risk. I also hope that hon.

33
Members have some faith in the Government's record on coming to the House immediately there is anything to discuss here.
Ms Oona King: Is it not the case that Israel has flouted UN resolutions, invaded its neighbours' territory and developed weapons of mass destruction without provoking any rebuke at all from George W. Bush, and that, despite George Bush using the words "viable Palestinian state", he has done nothing to make it a reality? What further pressure can the Government bring to bear on the American Administration, and what will we be pushing for, other than a speedier publication of the road map?
Mr. Straw: It is certainly true that Israel is in breach of a number of Security Council resolutions, but so too are the Arab states—it is a point that I have made often enough. I understand the debating point, although it is more than that, that is made here, but there is a difference between the resolutions in respect of Israel and Palestine, all of which ought to be implemented, but which impose complex obligations on a series of parties—the Palestinians. Israel and the Arab states—and the unilateral mandatory obligations imposed on Iraq under chapter VII.
At the risk of being castigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I am afraid that I do not accept that the United States Government have "done nothing". As it happens, they have moved the policy on within the UN further than even the Clinton Administration, because they moved what became resolution 1397 and then resolution 1402, providing for the first time for there to be Security Council policy laying down that there must be a viable Palestinian state.
What we now have to do—we continue to press for it, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does so particularly—is, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), make a reality of that much better policy. That is what we are doing.
Mr. James Clappison: Is there not a real danger that Saddam Hussein might seek to widen a conflict, as he did in the first Gulf war when he launched 39 Scud missiles at Israel? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is an overriding need for all parties in the region to exercise restraint and that everything possible must be done to protect all those who live there from the evil predations of Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman.
Ann Clwyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I thought was a robust and passionate speech that he made at the UN, but may I ask him why the case is not being made that there are strong grounds to intervene in Iraq on human rights grounds alone, as we intervened in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. I listen to spokesperson after spokesperson, and I remember resolution 688, which called for an end to repression of the public in Iraq, but the end to repression has not taken place. In fact, torture, ethnic cleansing and executions go on every day of the week in Iraq.
Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what she said and, if I may say so, the very robust way
34
in which she has prosecuted the case against Saddam Hussein on humanitarian as well as wider security grounds. There is, of course, a strong humanitarian case against Saddam Hussein. We concentrate on disarmament because of our subscription to international law. The basis for any military action in the region will be implementation of resolution 1441 and its predecessors, but of course my hon. Friend is right to imply that a consequence of that will be freeing the Iraqi people from the terrible burden and humanitarian catastrophe that is the Saddam Hussein regime.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Foreign Secretary please remind the House exactly of which part of resolution 1441 authorises war? Can he point to a similar resolution with the same wording under which war has been prosecuted and say which of the 37 UK Government vetoes were used unreasonably, and which uses of the veto by other countries were unreasonable?
Mr. Straw: I am delighted to do so. We start with paragraph 1, which says that the Security Council
"Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 … in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687".
We then go to paragraph 4, in which the Security Council
"Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations"—
obligations of which it is now in breach. We then turn to operative paragraph 13, in which the Security Council
"Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
The text of all those paragraphs is available in the Vote Office.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House how the raining of death upon innocent men, women and children can be an acceptable alternative to a policy of containment that is working? Will he listen to the people of this country, who are fed up and tired of him appeasing the United States and the hawks in the White House?
Mr. Straw: If I thought that there was a viable policy of containment that could work to ensure Saddam's disarmament I would support it, but that is palpably not the case. It is still possible for this matter to be resolved peacefully, but sadly that is Saddam's choice, not ours. With respect, I remember my hon. Friend saying something similar against military action in Kosovo. In the end, that proved necessary and was also right.
Mr. George Osborne: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the International Development

35
Secretary's description of the Prime Minister's policy as "reckless"? If not, has collective Cabinet responsibility broken down?
Mr. Straw: Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I believe that the policy that Her Majesty's Government are following is right.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Have the Government estimated the number of civilian casualties there will be if the war against Iraq takes place and 800 cruise missiles are targeted on Baghdad, as spelled out in the US war plan "Shock and Awe"? Has my right hon. Friend drawn up contingency plans for the plight of the children, when they are subjected to such terror bombing with weapons of mass destruction?
Mr. Straw: If there is military action, people will be killed, and some of them will be innocent. In any case, I do not even want guilty people to be killed unless that proves absolutely necessary. That is the nature of military action. I respect the pacifist tradition, but I do not support it. Unless we are pacifists, we have to acknowledge, as does the United Nations charter, that military action is sometimes necessary in pursuit of a greater good. It is my belief that if military action proves necessary the prime responsibility for that will be on Saddam's head. Although sadly people will be killed, the number of people saved by military action will greatly exceed the number killed.
Mr. John Gummer: The Foreign Secretary has helpfully characterised the second resolution as a mechanism for ensuring that there is no lack of clarity, and that there is no lack of a date or timetable to pressurise Saddam Hussein, because he will know that at that moment he will reap the whirlwind. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, irrespective of the result of the United Nations vote, neither the United Kingdom nor the United States will pre-empt that timetable?
Mr. Straw: I have to speak for the United Kingdom Government: I do not speak for the United States Government, as I made clear in a television programme yesterday. I repeat the undertakings that I have given before, which are there for all to see. We have repeatedly come to the House, and we have introduced proper, substantive votes on these resolutions. That is entirely appropriate. Subject to the caveat that I have entered about the safety of troops, we will come back immediately there is anything to report—as I have done today, even though there is no conclusion to the current Security Council considerations—and when there is a substantive result or lack of result.
Mr. Tony Clarke: Recently, the Prime Minister and President Bush have been dismissive of any use of the veto in the Security Council on a second resolution, yet on the Israel/Palestine question the USA has used its veto 34 times in the past 30 years. Given the USA's poor record on using its veto,
36
is the Foreign Secretary happy about British support for military action in the face of a veto after a second resolution?
Mr. Straw: Our preference is clearly to get a second resolution, and plainly we can get that only without a veto. On many occasions, I have had to say that we reserve our rights as to what judgments we make if we cannot get a second resolution, but of course I understand that the authority of the United Nations will be one of the important considerations that we will have to take into account in any difficult decisions we then have to make.
Mr. Michael Portillo: I have registered an interest.
What future does the Foreign Secretary believe NATO can possibly have now that the Foreign Secretary's good friend, dear Dominique, is touring Africa canvassing opinion against France's NATO allies, the United States and the United Kingdom?
Mr. Straw: I think that it has an interesting future. It certainly has a future—I am clear about that. These institutions, which have served, in the case of NATO, the western alliance and, in the case of the United Nations, the whole world, so well over the past 60 years are too robust to be undermined too far by temporary problems. We must all have a care, however, to ensure that those institutions continue to operate effectively.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I commend the very hard work that lies behind the Foreign Secretary's statement. Is he concerned, however, that the joint organiser of the anti-war marches and demonstrations is the Muslim Association of Britain, with its associations with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, who are committed as a religious requirement to the annihilation of the state of Israel?
Mr. Straw: I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about that. I have to say to her that in a free, democratic country, unlike Iraq, people come together in broad alliances to organise marches. I know from my long experience of being on marches that one sometimes finds oneself with the most curious of marching companions.
Mr. David Chidgey: The Foreign Secretary says in his statement that he profoundly hopes that the Iraqi regime will, even at this late stage, seize the chance to disarm peacefully. I am sure that we all recognise that sentiment. However, the right hon. Gentleman has also said on several occasions that it is in fact impossible to find Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in a country the size of France without his support and without his offering them up for verification. So my question is: what is the yardstick? Should the event arise whereby he does offer to disarm, how do we measure his compliance? Is it against the list that we had in 1998 or the future projection? How can we be sure that he has actually disarmed should he offer to do so?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises a really important question, which I touched on, but only

37
lightly, in my statement. There are two issues here: first, how one measures whether Saddam has, over a matter of days, come into compliance; then, when and if he has come into compliance, how one measures whether he has disarmed completely. One measures whether he has come into compliance on whether he is co-operating with the 29 separate clusters set out in this very detailed UNMOVIC report. As I indicated in my statement, we are discussing whether some of those can be distilled into a few possible markers or tests by which the Security Council would be able to make a judgment about whether there was compliance.
To take the issue of interviews, for example, anybody who feels that they should give the Iraqi regime the benefit of the doubt need only to look at the record in this report and in the successive reports of Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei concerning the point-blank refusal of the Iraqi regime to facilitate any free interviews outside Iraq whatsoever, notwithstanding the very clear requirements of 1441. So if they were suddenly to say, "Yes, we are going to comply with that and co-operate", and the relevant people appeared, and their relatives and friends were not murdered, that would be one indicator among a number. If we got to that point, the inspectors would go in and could have the time that they needed—I made that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). It would then be a matter of the inspectors saying, "Well, we have gone through each of these areas of the dossier and each of these clusters of issues, and they have dealt with what is required of them over a period of time." First, however, they have got to show that they are in compliance.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Rather than cherry-pick the bits of the reports that bolster what is, to many of us, a wholly unconvincing Government case, and further to the question by the Father of the House, will the Foreign Secretary now confirm that the forged evidence on uranium purchases that was submitted to the IAEA was provided by the United Kingdom? Will he also confirm, given his comments on anthrax as an alleged biological weapon in Iraq, that the anthrax was provided by the United States, as set out in Senator Riegle's report?
Mr. Straw: I have to say gently to my hon. Friend that I do not know quite where he is coming from, because the Iraqis had an illegal nuclear weapons programme that they did not initially disclose. Far from cherry-picking the report, I felt it my duty to make clear the burden of what Dr. el-Baradei was saying, which I duly did. For information on anthrax, my hon. Friend needs to read section a, in chapter IV, on biological clusters, of the lengthy report. There, set out in detail, he will see the charges against the Iraqi regime. Contrary to Iraq's assertions that no other facilities had been used to produce anthrax, UNSCOM found evidence of anthrax in two places. Details of that are given. The report says:
"Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."
As far as I know, that anthrax did not come from the United States. However, even if it did, while it would have been wrong of the United States to supply it,

38
it would have been even worse of Iraq, in complete defiance of the United Nations, to continue to hang on to it and to maintain facilities to produce it.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: How does the Foreign Secretary expect to get public support when a senior member of the Cabinet has described his policy as "reckless"?
Mr. Straw: We have had that question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer is that I would describe the policy that we are following as fully in accordance with United Nations policy, and right.
David Cairns: Is one of my right hon. Friend's grounds for optimism the repeated findings of opinion polls of ordinary Israeli citizens that show that 70 per cent. or more of them consistently support a two-state settlement, including the removal of most, if not all, of the settlements? Given that fact, should the United States not move forward with that process? Far from abandoning Israel, as some have claimed it would be doing—and which I do not want it to do—the United States will be ensuring that the will of ordinary Israeli citizens comes to pass.
Mr. Straw: I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says about Israeli public opinion. However, it also has to be said that Israeli public opinion was expressed in a recent general election, with a slightly different indication in the result. The United States Government have to take account of such indications of public opinion, as do we. What I know for sure is that establishing a democratic Palestinian Authority with sound public administration and good people running it—as we now have—and ensuring that such a move is properly reciprocated by the Israeli Government, are two steps that can lead towards peace in the occupied territories and the beginnings of democracy, and peace in Israel, which is in the interests of both communities.
Mr. David Cameron: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, in the event of the House of Commons having a vote on a decision to commit British troops to a war in the Gulf, the Government will treat that vote as an issue of confidence?
Mr. Straw: We will treat that vote as the issue laid down in the resolution.
Mr. Doug Henderson: If the further resolution fails to obtain a majority, or is vetoed in the Security Council, how will my right hon. Friend, in the event that Britain then goes to war, demonstrate to the British public that we are taking the UN route? Is there not a danger that the British public will see that we are in favour of the UN when it suits us, and not when it does not?
Mr. Straw: I have already set out to the House our understanding of the legal base for any such action. I know that my hon. Friend has strong opinions on this issue, but if he goes through all the resolutions—from 1441 back to 687 and 678—he will see beyond peradventure why Iraq is in material breach, why the ceasefire provided for by those earlier 1991 resolutions

39
is not operative, and why serious consequences may follow. I repeat that our preference is for a second resolution. That is what we are working to achieve.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not the case that UN resolution 1441 gives all the criteria and more against which to set the non-compliance of the Iraqi regime? That being the case, may I say to the Foreign Secretary that he should not be dissuaded by any outcome over a second resolution in the event that French diplomacy, for example, is successful? Should he not bear in mind the fact that President Mugabe was recently feted and hosted by the French Government, and that the French Government are in danger of looking like a friend of murderous, dictators?
Mr. Straw: I am very clear that the Government of France have no better opinion of the Iraqi regime than we do. They supported 1441 and said back in November that Iraq was in material breach of it. The issue between us is not whether it is a hateful regime, but how we deal with that hateful regime. I regret the position that the French Government have taken on the merits, because that is less likely, not more likely, to lead to a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
David Hamilton: May I push the Minister on the following point? Time and time again he refers to how we must support the United Nations, but if one, two or three permanent members reject and veto our position—or, indeed, if a majority are against us—will we still go ahead with America and the conflict in Iraq?
Mr. Straw:I spelled out the background to, and the legal base and details of, 1441. The Security Council of the United Nations is a political institution. We are working to achieve a second resolution. We have to reserve our position on what decisions we may take if we cannot achieve that, but we will not make those decisions unless and until we have to face them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

ESTIMATES
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Report [6th March] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

  Local Government Bill
    New Clause 1

      VALUATION: CONFLICTS BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
      'In the event of any conflict between the Valuation Tribunal Service and a valuation tribunal over what is an administrative matter within the jurisdiction of the former and what is a judicial or other matter within the jurisdiction of the latter, the Service, a valuation tribunal or its president may request the President of the Council on Tribunals to appoint a qualified person to arbitrate between them and he shall do so.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.36 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 2—Valuation tribunals: immunity—
      'A member of a Valuation Tribunal or a clerk officiating at a tribunal hearing shall not be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as a tribunal member unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith.'.
      Amendment No. 1, in clause 105, page 60, line 17, leave out 'of, and clerks to' and insert—
      'and staff of (including clerks to)'.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: We have just 24 minutes in which to discuss four major groups of amendments. We must get to grips with timetable motions. The way in which the Government's business managers have handled the timetabling of the Bill is an utter disgrace to democratic debate in the House.
      New clause 1 is relatively technical and relates to the Valuation Tribunal Service. Perhaps it will help if I explain how the system works. In contrast, the Valuation Office Agency is an Executive agency of the Inland Revenue. It has 85 offices spread throughout England and Wales and employs about 4,000 people. It operates under a framework document agreed with Treasury Ministers and reviewed every five years. The most recent review is published in its report of 13 September.
      The main function of the VOA is to compile and maintain business rating and council tax valuation lists for England and Wales. The Valuation Tribunal Service is an independent judicial body that has the power to deal with appeals relating to non-domestic rating and council tax. There are 56 valuation tribunals in England. They are independent of the valuation officer and the billing authority. They usually sit with three members, although sometimes with two by agreement, and they have a clerk who is a paid employee of the tribunal and who advises on points of procedural law.

      41
      The valuation tribunals have been subjected to pressure on administrative grounds that sometimes infringes the conduct of their judicial activities. Those pressures come from central organisations, such as the Valuation Tribunal Service. Valuation tribunals want a means of protection against misuse of the word "administrative". It must be remembered that a valuation tribunal is a tax tribunal. It is understandable that an organisation such as the VOA may want procedural ways to make the collection of rates—nowadays a national tax—more efficient, but there is a difference between administrative ways and legal methods of collecting tax. But the VOA is also a party to almost all non-domestic rating cases heard by the valuation tribunals, which must act with judicial impartiality between the parties—the VOA and the taxpayers.
      New clause 1 deals with the conflicts that may arise. An officer of the valuation tribunal management board, the existing precursor of the Valuation Tribunal Service, issued a valuation tribunal guidance note, No. 5, criticising a tribunal's reasons for its decision, which can be appealed against in the High Court and the Lands Tribunal, and advocating that valuation tribunals should not comment on the legislation that they were reviewing. The valuation tribunal, which consists of three people acting in a voluntary capacity, had said that by law it must decide against the appellant, but pointed out that the legislation unduly restricted appeals. By issuing that guidance, the Executive was purporting to tell the judiciary what it should say, and that has not been accepted since 1688. The guidance was ignored, but is still remembered.
      New clause 1 states that, in the event of any conflict between the Valuation Tribunal Service and a valuation tribunal over what is an administrative matter within the jurisdiction of the former and what is a judicial or other matter within the jurisdiction of the latter, a qualified person will be appointed to arbitrate between them. It makes sense that there must be a satisfactory way of resolving conflicts between the different parts of the valuation system.
      For administrative convenience, I shall deal with amendment No. 1 before new clause 2. The amendment corrects what appears to be a simple drafting error in the Bill. The word "clerk" has two meanings. It can mean the principal officer of a whole valuation tribunal, who should be a member of the IRRV—the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation—which is the independent examination board and a professional body, not a trade union, but most professional clerks are not members. Some were in post before the professional exams came into existence and some did not bother to take them. That is being attended to, but in the meantime there is the old core. The number of such clerks is decreasing as tribunals are grouped for administrative purposes.
      Then there is a second type of clerk. As I said, each hearing is heard by three voluntary tribunal members, and a clerk in the second sense. It may be a clerk in the first sense, but it is more usually a tribunal tabling officer qualified to be a clerk in the first sense, but who is not one. They may or may not be IRRV-qualified, but it is important that they should be so qualified. The management board will pay all the fees and allow time off for staff to encourage them to train. The wording in
      42
      line 14, which includes other staff, is right, but the wording in line 17 leaves out other staff. That is clearly a drafting error. I hope that the Government will accede to our amendment No. 1, if not to new clauses 1 and 2.
      New clause 2 relates to members' liability. Members of tribunals are protected by judicial immunity at common law. Section 29(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 states:
      "An arbitrator is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as arbitrator unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith."
      Clearly, if he has acted in bad faith, he should be liable. As that applies to an arbitrator, why does it not apply to the three members of a valuation tribunal? It is far better for that to be enshrined in statute than for it to be part of common law.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. David Borrow: Can the hon. Gentleman give examples in which the new clause has been needed, and in which the system has not worked correctly, that would give reason to amend the law as he suggests?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The matter was brought to our attention by the National Association of Valuation Tribunals. Although it has not supplied me with specific examples, there have no doubt been such examples, or it would not have urged me to press the matter. The hon. Gentleman, who has professional experience in this field, may have such examples, although I do not know whether he supports the new clause.
      I was interrupted while reading out our new clause, which states:
      "A member of a Valuation Tribunal or a clerk"—
      let us remember that some clerks can operate in a voluntary capacity, too—
      "officiating at a tribunal hearing shall not be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as a tribunal member unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith."
      As the House can see, the wording of the new clause does not reinvent the wheel but is simply lifted from the Arbitration Act 1996 as it applies to arbitrators, who often act in a voluntary capacity, although they are sometimes paid. There seems no reason at all why members of the valuation tribunal, who nearly always act in a voluntary capacity, should not have that immunity enshrined in statute rather than having to rely on immunity in common law. I await with interest what the Minister has to say.
      Mr. Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats support the new clauses and amendment tabled by Conservative Members. We, too, have been contacted by the National Association of Valuation Tribunals, which set out the reason behind its wish to see the error in clause 105(2)(a)(v) corrected, and the addition of the two new clauses: to sort out the conflicts between judicial and administrative matters, and to clarify once and for all the issue of immunity.
      Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I obtained a further briefing from the association, including examples, which I could quote at length. It was produced by a learned

      43
      counsel, Ronald Barham, and discusses at length why the association thinks that the changes are necessary. I will not quote it, however, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) has an important set of amendments to consider, as do we, and I do not want to take up the House's time further. I hope that the Minister will give the new clauses and the amendment fair wind.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Valuation tribunals are extremely important to the operation of council tax and business rates across the country. Part 8 of the Bill creates a new Valuation Tribunal Service, a non-departmental public body, to be the employer of all valuation tribunal staff and to improve customer service delivery. The new service will not, however, interfere with the judicial decision-making function of valuation tribunals. We believe that it is important to create the new body to strengthen the identity and capacity of valuation tribunals, spread best practice across them, and give them increased independence. We anticipate it corning into force from around April 2004, which is a significant move that is widely welcomed by local government and those in the Valuation Tribunal Service.
      New clause 1 proposes a statutory duty for the president of the Council on Tribunals to, if asked, appoint somebody to arbitrate between the new Valuation Tribunal Service and valuation tribunals over what is or is not a judicial or administrative matter. The Valuation Tribunal Service, as we envisage it, would give advice only on procedure in relation to proceedings. Clause 105(2)(b) sets out that that will be the case. Disputes will, in our view, be so rare and minor that it would be entirely disproportionate to have a whole convoluted resolution mechanism, especially were it included in the Bill. In any case, valuation tribunals will be governed by the law and the Valuation Tribunal Service cannot force valuation tribunals to follow its advice.
      The new burden that new clause I would place on the president of the Council on Tribunals is unnecessary and out of proportion, not least because, as far as I am aware, there is no such post; the Council on Tribunals has a chairman, currently Lord Newton of Braintree. However, to be helpful and conciliatory, the Government are considering drafting an agreed dispute resolution procedure in the new Valuation Tribunal Service management statement to address any points as they may arise. With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw new clause 1.
      New clause 2 would ensure that members or clerks of valuation tribunals would not be liable for the reasonable consequences of their duties. There is no need for that new clause. Those who hold judicial office in this country have public policy immunity from acts of negligence in any case and similar protection already extends to members and clerks of valuation tribunals through the standard procedures governing the relationship between any non-departmental public body and sponsor Departments, and there are other protections as well.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: There may be protection at common law, but that is difficult to enforce. If the Minister accepts the principle, will he explain why immunity should not be enshrined in legislation?
      Mr. Leslie: The reason is that there is no need to do so, as all judicial office holders already automatically have public policy immunity. It would be inconsistent for us to enshrine such an arrangement in the Bill, but not to do so for the other judicial posts that exist in our constitution. In any case, Departments usually and typically give an undertaking that they will indemnify members, as well as staff, of valuation tribunals against personal civil liability incurred in the execution of official functions provided that they have not acted irresponsibly. That gives adequate protection, so new clause 2 is not necessary.
      Finally, amendment No. 1 would change clause 105(2)(a)(v), so that the list of functions and services provided by the Valuation Tribunal Service would not just include training for members of, and clerks to, tribunals, but instead explicitly allow training for members and staff of tribunals, including clerks to tribunals. Staff training is, of course, essential to the Valuation Tribunal Service in carrying out duties under clause 105 to secure the efficient and independent operation of valuation tribunals.
      Clause 105(4) explicitly says that the Valuation Tribunal Service can do anything to facilitate those functions, so staff training is covered adequately by the wording of that clause. However, we want to be helpful today to expedite business, and I have looked carefully at amendment No. 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Perhaps despite the eloquence of his argument, I believe that we must make it clear that staff are essential and important from the very outset and that there may be benefits in making it explicit that staff must be included in the training provision, so I am happy to say on this rare, but important occasion that the Government are happy to accept amendment No. 1.
      Ms Joan Walley: In view of what the Minister says about accepting amendment No. 1, will he look closely at amendment No. 63, tabled in my name, which I do not think we will have an opportunity to discuss, and perhaps return to me with similarly favourable comments?
      Mr. Leslie: If we reach that stage, I will listen carefully to my hon. Friend's arguments.
      I urge the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw new clause 1 and not to press new clause 2 for the reasons that I have given, but we can accept amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the debate, but I want to make an important point. The Foreign Secretary has just made a statement in which he based his case on a document entitled, "Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes", which was produced by UNMOVIC. He said that copies of the document had been placed in the Library and he commended it to all hon. Members. He said that it set out in 173 pages of painstaking detail the terrible nature of Saddam's weapons.

      45
      I have just been to the Library and asked for a copy. I was told that I could not have a copy to take away but would have to sit and read all 173 pages in the Library. This is a very important document: it is the basis on which war may be declared within days. It is impossible for us to queue up and read it in the Library, but we do not have permission to take it away to our rooms. I would be grateful if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could have words with the Library or with the Foreign Office, so that copies are made available and so that, as the Foreign Secretary said, all hon. Members may have access to the document.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Ministers are responsible for the statements that they make in the House and for making sure that what they say is carried out. The Library will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's point of order, as will the whole House. No doubt, the Library will take note of the situation. I hope that the problem will be remedied.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I assume that the Minister has concluded his remarks, but I hope that he will intervene to provide me with further clarification. He said that he would accept the principle of amendment No. 1. Does that mean that he will table an amendment in another place?
      Mr. Leslie rose—
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Before the Minister intervenes on that, will he clarify another matter? I believe that he inadvertently referred to clause 105(2)(a)(iv) instead of to sub-paragraph (v). Will he ensure that the provisions in sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) are consistent? Clarification would be helpful.
      Mr. Leslie: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am happy to accept amendment No. 1. That means that we will support it despite his arguments. I realise that that is a great achievement for him.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for small mercies. We had half a loaf in Committee; now we have a full loaf. Before I say anything else, I refer to the fact that I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and declare certain property interests that may be affected by the Bill.
      I apologise to the House for the incorrect drafting of new clause 1. There is no such person as the
      "President of the Council on Tribunals".
      The new clause should have referred to the chairman and, had it done so, I would certainly have pressed it to a vote. Because it is incorrectly drafted, I shall not, but instead seek to press new clause 2. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 2

      VALUATION TRIBUNALS: IMMUNITY
      'A member of a Valuation Tribunal or a clerk officiating at a tribunal hearing shall not be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as a tribunal member unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 295.

      Division No. 107]

      [4.58 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heald, Oliver

      Allan, Richard

      Heath, David

      Amess, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hendry, Charles

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Baker, Norman

      Holmes, Paul

      Barker, Gregory

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Howard, rh Michael

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Bercow, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hunter, Andrew

      Boswell, Tim

      Jack, rh Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Brady, Graham

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Brazier, Julian

      Breed, Colin

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Burns, Simon

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Burnside, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Burt, Alistair

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Cameron, David

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lidington, David

      Cash, William

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Loughton, Tim

      Chidgey, David

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Clappison, James

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Maclean, rh David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cotter, Brian

      Maples, John

      Curry, rh David

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Moore, Michael

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Doughty, Sue

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Evans, Nigel

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fabricant, Michael

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Fallon, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Paice, James

      Flook, Adrian

      Pickles, Eric

      Forth, rh Eric

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Francois, Mark

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Randall, John

      Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

      Redwood, rh John

      Goodman, Paul

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Ruffley, David

      Gummer, rh John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hague, rh William

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hammond, Philip

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Selous, Andrew

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      47

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

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Tyrie, Andre

      Spink, Bob (castle Point)

      Walter, Robert

      Spring, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Watkinson, Angela

      Steen, Anthony

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Streeter, Gary

      Whittingdale, John

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Syms, Robert

      Wiggin, Bill

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wilkinson, John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Thurso, John

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Turner, Andrew (lsle of Wight)

      Hugh Robertson

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Coleman, Iain

      Ainsworth, Bob (cov'try NE)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Corston, Jean

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Crausby, David

      Austin, john

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Baird, Vera

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Banks, Tony

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Beard, Nigel

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davidson, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Benton, joe (Bootle)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Berry, Roger

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Best, Harold

      Denham, rh John

      Betts, Clive

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Blizzard, Bob

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Blunkett, rh David

      Doran, Frank

      Borrow, David

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Edwards, Huw

      Efford, Clive

      Bryant, Chris

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Burden, Richard

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Burgon, Colin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      Cairns, David

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Caplin, lvor

      Foulkes, rh George

      Casale, Roger

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Caton, Martin

      Galloway, George

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Challen, Colin

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chaytor, David

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clapham, Michael

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Grogan, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Cohen, Harry

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      48

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Healey, John

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Martlew, Eric

      Heppell, John

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Merron, Gillian

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hinchliffe, David

      Miliband, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mole, Chris

      Howarth. George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Mountford, Kali

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Beverley (Streford & Urmston)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hutton, rh John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Iddon, Dr, Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Hara, Edward

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Owen, Albert

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jamieson, David

      Perham, Linda

      Jenkins, Brian

      Picking, Anne

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Kidney, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prescott, rh John

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Purchase, Ken

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Rammell, Bill

      Lammy, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lepper, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Leslie, Christopher

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

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Linton, Martin

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Love, Andrew

      Rooney, Terry

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Salter, Martin

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonnell, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      MacDougall, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McFall, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Singh, Marsha

      McKechin, Ann

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Southworth, Helen

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Spellar, rh John

      49

      Squire, Rachel

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Stevenson, George

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Ward, Claire

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Straw, rh Jack

      Watts, David

      Stringer, Graham

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Williams, Rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Wills, Michael

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yamouth)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright. David (Telford)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright. Tony (Cannock)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Trickett, Jon

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Truswell, Paul

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mr. Phil Woolas

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [25 February] put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to he concluded at that hour.

    Clause 105

      THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL SERVICE
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 60, line 17, leave out 'of, and clerks to' and insert
      'and staff of (including clerks to)'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
      Mr. Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House may need to be aware that as amendments and new clauses have fallen, neither the Committee nor the House has debated five areas of part 8, chapter 1, which includes important clauses on charging and trading, which will leave many people in local government very disappointed. Have you been approached by any representatives of the Government about making more time available to debate those clauses?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the fact that the House has been unable to debate those matters. Unfortunately those matters have already been decided by the House in its programme motion, and there is nothing that the Chair can do about that at this stage.

    New Clause 11

      REPEAL OF SECTION 2A OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1986
      'The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament within 24 months of the coming into force of section 119 and at intervals of 24 months thereafter a report containing information on the effect of the operation of that section on—

      (a) the adherence to guidance issued under section 403(1A) of the Education Act 1996 (c. 96);

      50

      (b) the operation of the provisions of section 404 of that Act; and

      (c) the numbers of parents withdrawing their children from sex education pursuant to section 405 of that Act.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in line 7, leave out 'and'.
      Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, in line 9, at end add,
      ';and
      (d) the operation of guidance issued in relation to section 403( IA) of that Act in relation to bodies established by local authorities pursuant to section 508(2) of that Act.'.
      New clause 17—Sex or relationship education in facilities established pursuant to s508 (2) of Education Act 1996—
      '.—A local authority may not provide financial support to any facilities established pursuant to s508 (2) of the Education Act 1996 unless that local authority is satisfied that any sex or relationship education or guidance offered within that facility complies with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to s403 (1A) of that Act.'.
      New clause 21—Presentation of issues of sexual morality—
      'In the Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10) there is inserted after section 2—
      "Issues of sexual morality
      2Z (1) The local authority, in the exercise of any of its functions in relation to people under the age of eighteen years, shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where issues relating to the morality of sex outside of marriage are brought to the attention of persons under the age of eighteen who are—

      (a) in attendance at a maintained school, or

      (b) taking part in extracurricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school

      they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.
      (2) In this section "maintained school" includes a maintained special school established in a hospital.".'.
      Amendment No. 8, in page 70, line 41, leave out Clause 119.
      Amendment No. 14, in page 110 [Schedule 7] leave out lines 27 and 28.
      Amendment No. 15, in page 110, line 29 [Schedule 7], leave out 'Sections 28 and' and insert 'Section'.
      Amendment No. 16, in page 111 [Schedule 7], leave out line 41.
      Amendment No. 17, in page 112 [Schedule 7], leave out lines 2 and 3.
      Amendment No. 18, in page 112 [Schedule 7], leave out lines 20 and 21.
      Amendment No. 10, in page 72, line 34 [Clause 125], leave out '115 and 119' and insert 'and 115'.
      Amendment No. 11, in page 72 [Clause 125], leave out lines 38 and 39.

      51
      Amendment No. 12, in page 73 [Clause 125], leave out lines 3 to 5.
      Amendment No. 13, in page 73 [Clause 125], leave out line 8.
      Amendment No. 37, in page 73, line 9 [Clause 125], at end insert—
      '(2A) Section 119 shall come into force two months after the day on which the Secretary of State certifies that—

      (a) appropriate guidance has been issued under section 403(1A) of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56); and

      (b) an appropriate mechanism has been established for consulting parents of registered pupils by ballot about the contents of any written statement made in pursuance of section 404(1)(a) of that Act.'.

      5.15 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Many misapprehensions and misnomers have been expressed on the subject of repealing so-called section 28, and it may help the House if I go through the current legal position on sex education in schools. Let me say at the outset that the Conservative party regards these as matters of conscience. We will therefore have completely free votes on the whole of this part of the Bill. I urge Ministers and spokesmen for other parties to confirm when they reply to the debate whether the same procedure will apply to their colleagues.
      This debate is entirely about protecting our children in schools. All of us can argue about the content of sex education, but few would argue that there should be no sex education at all. The question is simply how it should be carried out. The question is important, especially in the light of some of the statistics that I shall give on unwanted teenage pregnancies.
      Let me set out the legal history. As everyone knows, section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 inserted new section 2A into the Local Government Act 1986. The words of the provision are well known by many hon. Members, but it is worth quoting them. New section 2A states:
      "(1) A local authority shall not—

      (a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;

      (b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship."

      Subsection (2) is important. It states:
      "Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease."
      Parliament then passed the Education Act 1996, clause 403 of which states:
      "The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall"—
      I shall paraphrase—take steps to ensure that sex education is given in such a manner as to encourage pupils to have due regard to the moral considerations and the value of family life. Few would argue with that. That Act, in section 404(1)(a), provided for a written
      52
      statement to be made and kept up to date, and it defined a maintained school. Importantly, section 405 provided the statutory basis for exemption, stating:
      "If the parent of any pupil in attendance at a maintained school requests that he may be wholly or partly excused from receiving sex education at the school, the pupil shall, except so far as such education is comprised in the National Curriculum, be so excused accordingly until the request is withdrawn."
      Any parent who is not happy with any of the sex education provided at any maintained school may withdraw their child from that sex education at the school in so far is it does not form part of the national curriculum. That is clearly enshrined in legislation, and it is an important safeguard.
      The Learning and Skills Act 2000 is important to sex education in schools, too, because it modifies section 403 of the Education Act 1996 by inserting new subsection (1A), which states:
      "The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools—

      (a) they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children, and

      (b) they are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned."

      New subsection (1B) provides that
      "In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance."
      It is important to note that section 148(3) specifically omits the words "local education authority". Colleagues can see that sex education in schools and guidance are now the responsibility of the governing body and the head teacher, not of the local authority as defined under section 2A of the Local Government Act 1988. In a sense, section 28 has become something of a misnomer in law.
      The guidance extends to about 30 pages and was issued in July 2000 under reference DfEE 0116/2000. If any colleague has not read it, I would urge him or her to do so. I think that it is written in a moderate, balanced and sensible way. When we debate new clause 11, it will be seen that one of the main planks of our policy is to enshrine this guidance even more strongly in statute than it is now.
      Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend accept that no matter how clear or unclear the guidance may be, the effect of section 28 is to stop teachers trying to prevent homophobic bullying? It means that many schools cannot explain effectively what homosexuality is all about. In this modern day and age, there needs to be openness in schools, as in society in general.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with the last sentence of my hon. Friend's intervention. There must be complete openness in schools. I think that colleagues will recognise, when I quote relatively selectively from the guidance, how well written it is. If it is strictly adhered to, I cannot see that there would be a great problem with sex education in schools. The problem comes when some of the things to which my hon. Friend alluded happen. I shall come back to that, but first I shall concentrate for a moment on the guidance.

      53
      Colleagues will have noted that new clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to
      "lay before Parliament within 24 months of the coming into force of section 119"—
      that is, the section that abolishes section 2A—a report about
      "the adherence to guidance",
      about
      "the operation of the provisions of section 404"—
      that is, the written statements and materials—and about
      "the numbers of parents withdrawing their children from sex education pursuant to section 405",
      which I have already read out. If colleagues vote for the Bill to remain as it was when it emerged from consideration in Committee—that is, in the absence of section 2A—we want to see some strengthening of the position.
      I shall quote from the guidance. It is introduced by three points, and starts by saying:
      "Sex and relationship education should be firmly rooted in the framework for PSHE".
      That means personal social health education. It continues:
      "Effective sex and relationship education is essential if young people are to make responsible and well informed decisions about their lives … The objective of sex and relationship education is to help and support young people through their physical, emotional and moral development … The new PSHE framework will help pupils to develop the skills and understanding they need to live confident, healthy and independent lives"—
      in response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), I would almost add "open lives".
      The document continues:
      "It will play an important role, alongside other aspects of the curriculum and school life, in helping pupils deal with difficult moral and social questions."
      It adds:
      "This is the first time that schools have had a national framework to support work in this area. As part of sex and relationship education, pupils should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children. But the Government recognises … that there are strong and mutually supportive relationships outside marriage. Therefore people should learn the significance of marriage and stable relationships as key building blocks of community and society."
      The document also says:
      "Effective sex and relationship education does not encourage early sexual experimentation. It should teach young people to understand human sexuality and to respect themselves and others. It enables young people to mature, to build up their confidence and self-esteem and understand the reasons for delaying sexual activity."
      That is very important; we can begin to see how reasonably written the document is.
      Page 9 says:
      "Materials used in schools must be in accordance with the PSHE framework and the law. Inappropriate images should not be used nor should explicit material not directly related to explanation. Schools should ensure that pupils are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate, having regard to the age and cultural background of the pupils concerned."
      54
      Clearly, what is appropriate at secondary school age would be entirely inappropriate at primary school age. I shall give a few examples that amply demonstrate that.
      The document also says:
      "The Department recommends that all primary schools should have a sex and relationship education programme tailored to the age and the physical and emotional maturity of the children."
      Finally, page 15 of the guidance document says:
      "In England in 1998 there were over 100,000 conceptions to teenagers, of which over 8,000 were to girls under 16".
      Of these teenage pregnancies, 38 per cent.—almost 39,000—ended in abortion. We have to get sex education in schools right.
      Kali Mountford: If the hon. Gentleman wants to enshrine that guidance in law, I find it difficult to accept his argument. The guidance gives parents, governing bodies and teachers the flexibility to take account of the very things that he says are important, such as cultural background, age and the religious affiliations of the area. Would it not be difficult to recognise those differences in pupils' culture and religion if the hon. Gentleman tried to enshrine the guidance in law as he suggests?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I take the hon. Lady's point, but it is important that we try to get the subject right. It should be taught on a national basis, and best practice in sex education should be adopted by all schools. One way of achieving that is making sure that the guidance is largely adhered to.
      I shall give the House one or two examples of how things can go wrong. I give the Minister notice that I want to press him on what is meant by the Learning and Skills Act 2000 which, via new section 403(1C) of the Education Act 1996, states:
      "Guidance under subsection (1A) must include guidance about any material which may be produced by NHS bodies for use for the purposes of sex education in schools."
      At the moment the position is very unclear indeed—I shall come back to that in a minute.
      Some of the material produced by health authorities is inappropriate. A rather nasty booklet has been produced by an organisation called PHACE West. I shall not subject the House to its contents except to say that it refers to practices called rimming and scat—I do not know what they mean. PHACE West is partly funded by public funds, and its booklet is available to children as young as 12. Such material is inappropriate for young children. I am pressing the Minister hard for the meaning of subsection (1C), because his colleagues the Education Ministers certainly seem to be unclear about its meaning.
      Another booklet was produced by the Scottish Executive and entirely funded by public funds. I accept that the law in Scotland is slightly different, and shall not subject the House to some rather nasty bits of that booklet. Suffice to say it talks about teaching children aged seven to 11 about anal intercourse, masturbation, all about the clitoris, lesbianism, oral sex and bisexuality. That is another example of where things have gone wrong. Another rather nasty booklet was produced by Avon health authority, but I shall spare the House the gory details. However, we need to know what is meant by health authority guidance in subsection (1C).

      55
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has done the House a great service in tabling amendments that demonstrate the ragged edges caused by the Government's getting rid of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. As Conservative spokesman, I have said that the issue is one of freedom of conscience, and shall abstain from voting on my hon. Friend's amendments, to demonstrate strict neutrality on the Front Bench. None the less, there are some ragged edges.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: If this is a genuine free vote—and I believe that it is—why should my hon. Friend be inhibited from voting?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am not inhibited from voting one way or another. I just think that it would be wrong, in proposing our compromise new clause—to which I shall now turn—to indicate which way I feel section 2A should go. There will be colleagues who have strong views either way, and I respect those views. I respect the strong views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and I respect my hon. Friends who hold the opposite view. From my own point of view, I shall maintain a strict neutrality and not vote either way.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am following closely what my hon. Friend is saying and he is making his arguments very carefully and concisely. Does he agree, however, that if examples of this material exist, and if there are clear indications that abuse could occur, and if section 28—as it is colloquially known—is swept away by the Government with Liberal Democrat support, the onus should be on the Government to come up with an alternative method of protecting our children, rather than that being left to the official Opposition?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown:I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. I have no idea whether the Government are going to accept my new clauses or not, but if they are not, there needs to be further negotiation. If no such further negotiation takes place, I am sure that our noble Friends and colleagues in another place will wish to take the matter up. I do not expect this to be the last word on the subject.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for our Front-Bench amendments. May I say, however, that the most important single thing to arise out of the case that he has just made is the need for the House to vote on new clause 21—also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough—which specifically identifies the sexualisation of children as the central issue? That issue is independent of homosexuality or heterosexuality, as many of the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) show.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I entirely accept the sincerity of the views that my hon. Friend, and many of my other hon. Friends, hold on this subject. New clause 21 is an excellent new clause; it is very similar to my own new clause 11. Unfortunately, new clause 11 comes first, and I suspect that it will be the first to be voted on. Colleagues might wish to call for other votes, however. I have no idea what they might wish to call for.
      Mr. Edward Davey rose—
      Dr. Brian Iddon rose—
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I move on? I have an important point to make. I challenged the Minister to give the House an answer on the health guidance, and I wish to take that matter further because, having given the House examples that come from health authorities, I believe that there will be a lacuna in the law. We need the Minister to clear this matter up tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) helpfully wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on this subject on 24 January, saying:
      "I cannot, however, find anything within this publication that discharges the Secretary of State's obligation under Subsection 1C."—
      that is the one that I read out—
      "The only reference, so far as I am aware, to the material produced by the NHS is in paragraph 1.8 which indicates that the Department of Health will be issuing guidance to Health Authorities to the effect that any materials developed by them must be in line with DFEE guidance. This does not discharge the obligation under Subsection 1C."
      My hon. Friend received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), on 10 February. The first paragraph states the legal position, as I have done, in relation to how the guidance is enshrined in the Education Act 1996 and exactly what the guidance is. Then, bizarrely, the Minister goes on to say:
      "Materials intended for use in schools should be pre-tested with teachers, parents and governors, to ensure they are acceptable and appropriate. In producing materials for schools, Health Authorities must also have regard for the Department for Education's Sex and Relationship Education Guidance. Copies of the document may be obtained from the Department of Health website".
      We need a much stronger position than that. If the House votes this evening to leave the Bill as it is—that is, to remove section 2A—the Government will need to attend to this matter, and I urge them to use the earliest legislative opportunity to clarify the measure.
      I am going to use an unconventional parliamentary technique—for which you will probably call me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and hand the letter across the Dispatch Box. I ask the Minister to clarify the matter when he sums up.
      Dr. Iddon: Just for the record, will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether the material that he has been waving about this evening and in Committee is for the use of children, or to prepare teachers in case they

      57
      get awkward questions from the children? It is important to make clear what the literature is intended for.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman cannot be so naive as to presume that material produced for teachers is not automatically given to the children. One knows what children are like: even if the teacher does not give the material to them directly, it is likely that it will be left lying around and children will get hold of it. Everybody knows that. [Interruption.] Labour Members may make a huge fuss, but what matters is not whether the material is given to the children or the teacher, but the content of the material. If the content is unsuitable, it does not matter whether the children get the material or not. It is unsuitable for children of the age that it is aimed at—full stop. I shall move on.
      Mr. Davey: I want to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. His hon. Friends will want to know that he did the honourable thing in Committee and voted to get rid of section 28. Therefore, can he explain to the House why he will be neutral and not oppose amendment No. 8 if it is pressed to a vote?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have made my position clear. I will not vote one way or the other if amendment No. 8 is pressed. I shall vote in respect of our compromise proposal. [Interruption.] I have made the position clear, but the hon. Gentleman looks shocked. I can do no more than emphasise what I have said from the Dispatch Box.
      I wish to move on to one or two other aspects that must be considered, because the whole thing is fairly untidy and jagged. Here I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and urge the House to consider not only his amendment No. 8, which has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), but, for a start, my hon. Friend's amendment No. 16, which relates to paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Education Act 1996, and pupil referral units.
      Through the repeals section of the Bill, the Government are removing paragraph 5, but the problem is that they are not removing paragraph 7, which involves offences relating to section 2A and being able to exclude people from a pupil referral unit. Whatever happens, the Minister must consider that particular jagged edge. This is a serious matter, and amendment No. 16 relates to it. Paragraph 5, entitled "Application of Local Government Act 1986", states:
      "A pupil referral unit is a maintained school for the purposes of section 2A(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition on promoting homosexuality)."
      That is entirely consistent with the Bill as it left Committee and entirely right, but paragraph 8, entitled "Sex education, political indoctrination and political issues", states:
      "Sections 403, 406 and 407 (sex education, political indoctrination, and treatment of political issues) apply in relation to pupil referral units as they apply in relation to county schools."
      It seems to me that leaving in paragraph 8 would be untidy. The Minister shakes his head. That is fine, but perhaps he will explain why it would not be untidy, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough will press that point in addressing amendment No. 16.
      58
      Another of my hon. Friend's proposals, amendment No. 18, would repeal section 104 of the Local Government Act 2000, which says:
      "In section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material), at the end of subsection (2) there is inserted; 'or
      (b) prevent the headteacher or governing body of a maintained school, or a teacher employed by a maintained school, from taking steps to prevent any form of bullying'."
      Bullying, whatever form it takes, is an important matter. My hon. Friend has done the House a service. That section will be repealed if the Bill goes through, and we need to know from the Minister what will take its place. Bullying in schools, whether homophobic or whatever else, is a serious matter.
      Mr. Michael Fallon: The strength of the examples that my hon. Friend has given are not quite reflected in the strength of his new clause 11. Does he intend to say anything about his new clause 17? Merely calling for a report may not improve the situation.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I was coming to that. For administrative convenience, I want to deal with amendment No. 37 first; then I shall return to new clause 17.
      Amendment No. 37 is the second part of our compromise. I have already elucidated the first part in some detail, which is to enshrine the guidance in statute. We feel that the guidance, sensible though it is, should not be able to be amended unless it comes before the House as a statutory instrument under the affirmative resolution procedure.
      The second important part of our compromise is that parents should be able to test whether the head teacher and school governing body have adhered to that guidance. We propose that parents should be able to exercise their vote in a ballot if they are dissatisfied with the material and with the written statement under the statute. If at least 5 per cent. of parents so decide, they could trigger a ballot. The majority of parents registered at a school would vote, and if they voted that the material did not conform to the guidance, the head teacher and governing body would have to rewrite it. There would be the possibility of triggering a further ballot, and if parents again voted against the material produced by the school, the default position would be for the Secretary of State to issue his own guidance and statement.
      In that way, the parents in a school would have two safeguards. First, under section 405 of the Education Act 1996, they could withdraw their children from school. Secondly, they could trigger a ballot, and a repeat ballot if they thought that the material produced by the school's governing body or the head teacher did not conform with the guidance. We believe that that is a strong compromise, and I hope that my hon. Friends will see that.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: If a second ballot were lost by 1 per cent., what would happen next?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is clear. We believe in democracy, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does. If the

      59
      second ballot were lost even by one vote, the parents would obviously be dissatisfied with the material, so the matter would go to the Secretary of State. That seems to me exactly the right thing to do.
      The final lacuna in the Bill is that section 2A applies only to pupils in maintained schools, as I stated clearly in my longish summing up of the legal position. It emerged in Committee that there is a lacuna, as the provision does not apply to youth clubs. I have referred to the nasty little document that is circulating among children as young as 12 in youth clubs. If section 2A is abolished, there will be nothing in the law to cover that situation.
      It was difficult to make sure that the new clauses would be in order, because we are trying to amend an Education Act by means of a Local Government Bill. We propose that section 508 of the Education Act 1996 should be included in any guidance. I shall give my hon. Friends an idea of what section 508 covers. It provides that a local authority may
      "establish, maintain or manage … camps, holiday classes, playing fields, play centres, and … other places, including playgrounds, gymnasiums and swimming baths not appropriated to any school or other education institution",
      and may organise games, expeditions and other facilities. So we say, through new clause 17, that it is incredibly important that all facilities and organisations, where they are in any way funded by the local authority, should be brought within the guidance.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the section covers youth clubs?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am as satisfied as I can be in that respect. My hon. Friend brought up the matter in Committee, and I am grateful to him for trying to assist by tabling amendments (a) and (b). He obviously feels that the section would apply to youth clubs.
      Kali Mountford: If what the hon. Gentleman describes as a nasty little document is available in youth clubs, why is it not prohibited under section 2A?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Because, as I have tried to explain to the hon. Lady, section 2A applies only to maintained schools. That is precisely the point.
      Mr. Chris Bryant:So why not vote to get rid of it?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman asks why we do not vote to get rid of it. We have to ensure that safeguards are put in place. If the House votes to get rid of section 2A, as I suspect it will, hon. Members must be aware of the lacunae that will still exist. One of the difficulties that I mentioned to the Minister, who undertook to consider it, is that boys and girls who go to youth clubs when they are relatively young will be left unprotected. That is an unsatisfactory position. If the
      60
      Bill emerges without any amendments or new clauses, the Government will have to consider that aspect, among others.
      Mr. Borrow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will not give way any more; I have given way enough.
      The Minister needs to address three major issues, apart from the whole issue of sex education and guidance: the material that is produced by health authorities, and how the guidance applies to them; bullying and how to deal with it; and, in particular, youth clubs.
      We are all concerned to protect children and we are having an important debate about that. I suspect that the House will vote to leave the Bill as it is. That means that sex education in schools is moving on, so appropriate safeguards must be in place. The beginnings are there, but substantial problems remain. The compromise measures that we propose in new clauses 11 and 17 and amendment No. 37 would address that situation. I urge hon. Members to vote for them.
      Mr. Bryant: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I shall talk about only one of the many amendments that are before us—amendment No. 8—for the simple reason that it strikes to the heart of the debate, which essentially concerns the morality of the society in which we live and the way in which we choose to incorporate that into law.
      Every society is constituted by its mores, the pattern of which forms the morality by which we all live our lives. Sometimes those mores are simply customs such as shaking hands or kissing somebody when you greet them; sometimes they are commonly held assumptions that everyone believes that everyone else holds; sometimes they are intellectual assertions that are propounded by teachers, educationists or the authorities of the land, and are often fiercely contested. It is rare, however—at least in modern democratic societies—that those mores are enshrined in law. In the modern world, it tends to be only theocratic states that have retained the enshrinement of mores in law.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by mores, in this context? Many of our morals are enshrined in law—such as, "Thou shalt not kill."
      Mr. Bryant: I do not want to get into a lengthy discussion on the ten commandments, although they would clearly form part of the mores of any society. However, mores stretch across a wide range of issues. In this country, it might be thought immoral for two men to greet each other by kissing; in Argentina, it would be thought very peculiar for two men to greet each other not by kissing.
      David Cairns: I know that my hon. Friend does not want to get into a discourse on the ten commandments—neither do I—but we would not dream of legislating, to bring into law and enshrine in statute, that people had to honour the Sabbath. My hon.

      61
      Friend is right to suggest that these are complex matters. Does he agree that simply parroting out the ten commandments does not get us anywhere?
      Mr. Bryant: Indeed. I do not think that any of the ten commandments touch on the matters that we are discussing tonight.
      Often, the mores on which a society's morality is built are based on myths—myths that were held in days gone by but that have subsequently been proven incorrect. The most common myth about homosexuality is that it is a choice—that somebody has chosen to be homosexual. Some people's interpretation of the Old and New Testaments may be that those who have chosen to be homosexual are acting outside the law of God, whereas those who have no choice about their sexuality, and for whom their sexuality is something to be discovered, are not acting outside that law. That view has often been preached by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the late 20th century and now in the 21st century, most people have accepted that people do not choose to be homosexual but discover that they are homosexual.
      Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution, but does he accept that the sexual orientation of young children can be influenced, and that sex education can play a part in that?
      Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is tending towards the argument that homosexuality is an illness that can be caught. From experience, I know that the pressures of modern society are so strong that nobody would choose to be homosexual unless they felt that it was absolutely inevitable, that being homosexual was an integral part of who they were, and that they could do no other. For many years—from Jung onwards—psychiatric opinion has contested the idea that homosexuality was an illness that could be cured by aversion therapy, by electric shock treatment and by a whole range of other treatments.
      Miss Ann Widdecombe: I want to press the hon. Gentleman on the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Does the hon. Gentleman accept that teaching a child encompasses an element of influence? Is it not therefore important, when teaching children, that a way of life that—as the hon. Gentleman has just admitted—can cause problems in adult life should not be promoted?
      Mr. Bryant: The right hon. Lady once told me on Radio 4 that I was "gambling with eternity" because of the way in which I led my life. The right hon. Lady makes a common mistake. She believes that the influence that can be brought to bear on a young person can so transform their sexual leanings that they will become homosexuals. From my experience as a youth worker in the Church of England, when I assisted youth organisations all round the diocese of Peterborough, I know that that is not the case. If it were possible for somebody to catch homosexuality or to be influenced into becoming homosexual, I think that Oscar Wilde's children would have been gay. They were not.
      62
      Homosexuality cannot be caught. One of the myths that is perpetuated in common parlance is that homosexuality and paedophilia are more or less the same thing. Sometimes, in the debate on this issue—especially in the House of Lords, where it has been referred to many times—there has been an enormous conflation that is both ignorant and profoundly unhelpful.
      There are two myths than can easily be dispelled. They strike perhaps a slightly lighter note. One is that no clergy are gay. That was the firm belief of the Bishop of Oxford who, three weeks after ordaining me, said that he had never laid hands on a gay man. Either he did not know, or he chose to ignore it. It is one of the profound sadnesses of the past 50 years that, although the Church of England has had many gay clergy who have served it extremely well—especially in many inner-city parishes where many clergy with children would not want to serve—the Church has pretended that those people have not served it well. That has been a great disservice to the Gospel.
      The second myth is that no married people are gay. I cannot count the number of times I have heard somebody say, "Oh, no, he can't be gay, because he's married with children." I have already mentioned Oscar Wilde but I am sure that there are many others—some of whom have been Members of this House—who could prove that myth untrue.
      I have always felt section 28 to be immoral because of the profound damage that it has done to enormous numbers of bruised individuals. The number of young men who have committed suicide when they have started to understand their own sexuality is phenomenal. The more tolerant attitudes in many other countries have made it far more possible for people to come to understand themselves and to grow into adults who play an important part in society.
      Section 28 was not brought in to protect children; it was brought in to make a declamation—that homosexuality was abnormal, immoral and wrong. That has caused profound damage, not only to homosexual men but to literally millions of wives. How many women, because their men have felt, in the society in which they lived, that they had to get married to cure themselves somehow of their homosexual tendencies, have ended up leading a miserable married life because they never really knew the person to whom they were married? I do not want to mention any particular people, but if any hon. Member doubts what I have said, they should watch the film "Far from Heaven", which is a dramatic version of a story that literally millions of people have gone through. Millions of wives have had their lives destroyed. For that matter, millions of children of homosexual men have never been able to know their father properly. Those men have sought to marry but have done so against what they probably knew to be their proper nature. Their children have often inherited denial as a psychiatric pattern, which has affected the rest of their lives and given them further problems.
      A declamatory law that says that homosexuality is not to be promoted, because in some way or another it is abnormal or immoral, leads to a greater sense that it is okay to bully somebody because they are homosexual. Section 28—as it was called in 1988 and as many of us still think of it—is purely a declamatory law. The

      63
      hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has already said that it has no effect in modern law. Law that has been drafted means that the section has been sidelined in a way that is marked. There has not been a single prosecution since section 28 was brought in, despite all the things that the hon. Gentleman referred to.
      Andrew Selous: I want to correct the hon. Gentleman on that point. He is probably aware that, in the case of Glasgow City Council, there was a judicial review as a result of section 28, although the section has since been repealed in Scotland.
      Mr. Bryant: I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a point, but we are talking not about the way that legislation will affect Scotland but about the way that it will affect here.
      Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way as it gives me an opportunity to clarify what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Is it not the case that section 28, as it is known, applies to local education authorities and therefore to youth clubs that are run by them, so any material that is produced for or by youth clubs would be covered by the Act as it now stands?
      Mr. Bryant: To be honest, the single most important reason for getting rid of section 28 is its declamatory effect. The words that many gay men, lesbians and bisexuals find profoundly offensive are those that state that a local authority shall not
      "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship."
      I cannot imagine how anyone could have written that from any perspective, whether it be profoundly Christian or Muslim, without deliberately intending to be offensive.
      Mr. Brazier rose—
      Mr. Llwyd rose—
      Mr. Bryant: I will give way, but I am being particularly generous.
      6 pm
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is being generous and his speech is courageous, but what does he think about new clause 21? Without mentioning either homosexuality or heterosexuality specifically, it would dissuade local authorities from sexualising young children.
      Mr. Bryant: I said that I only wanted to speak about one aspect of the subject. New clause 21 is ambivalent and is merely a smokescreen for those who want to pretend that they are in the nice party when really they are not.
      Mr. Llwyd: Surely the best case for the repeal of section 28 is that it is obsolete. The hon. Gentleman is
      64
      right to say that no one was prosecuted under it. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) referred to a civil process in Scotland. As far as I know, there has never been a criminal prosecution.
      Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My problem with such a declamatory law is that it leads to an assumption of prejudice. Some hon. Members may believe that there is hardly any prejudice left against homosexuality in this country. Homosexuals are in nearly every soap opera on television and many celebrities feel able to come out. Indeed, many hon. Members on both sides of the House are honest about their sexuality and see it as something to be celebrated. But prejudice is alive and well. Many children speak of bullying. Being called a poof or a queer can be devastating for young people and they will do everything in their power to prevent that from being levelled at them if they happen to be homosexual. If they are not, it might not matter so much.
      Everyone who guesses the number of homosexuals comes up with a figure of their own, but perhaps between one in 20 and one in 10 are by nature homosexual, as they will discover by the age of 18, 21, 28, 34 or whenever—it will happen at some point in their life. For many of those people, that bullying can be profoundly bruising, and the bruises can sometimes be very real. There are more than a dozen cases every year of serious queer bashing in which individuals are killed or beaten for their sexuality and for doing something that other people would find entirely normal—perhaps for going to a bar or for kissing someone whom they love. It is not many years since the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in Old Compton street. Very few people in the gay community in London or, I suspect, across the country were not as profoundly touched by that experience as the Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities were when bombs were let off in their communities.
      In addition, gay men or lesbians have to think twice about many thoroughly normal things that are part of an ordinary person's life. They have to think twice before booking a hotel room because the woman on the desk at the hotel might say, "Sorry. We don't allow homosexuals in this hotel", when they turn up. They have to think twice before taking out a mortgage in case the woman falls off her chair when someone says that his partner is a man, not a woman. However, gay and lesbian people do not have to think twice when they write their wills, but three, four or five times because of the difficulty of constructing a will that allows their partner to live in the home for which they may have paid throughout their life. They have to think twice before going abroad because a large number of countries, including many in the Commonwealth, have legislated against homosexuality and the penalties are severe. For that matter, they have no right to attend the inquest of the person with whom they may have lived and shared their life for 20, 30 or 40 years and whose funeral they may have organised.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sure that the House has considerable sympathy with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but how do his remarks relate to sex education in schools and section 28?
      Mr. Bryant: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would have ruled me out of order had I steered away

      65
      from the Bill's content. My point is simple, however. At the moment, the section is obsolete. It only exists as a declamatory law and it makes people feel all right about being prejudiced against homosexuals in society. If we are to have a declamatory law on homosexuality, it should proclaim that everyone is equal under the law and has an equal right to live and love.
      Many of us presume that this House will come to one view on the matter and that the other place will come to another. A friend of mine who sits in the House of Lords told me that her first day there was spent in a debate on section 28 which she found perplexing because she had never heard so many medical terms in her life. I profoundly hope that as a result of, I think, four free votes in this House, the House of Lords will honour the views of the democratic Chamber.
      Mr. Edward Davey: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant). He put his case powerfully and sensitively. Some of the real-life examples that he gave reminded me of gay friends of mine who faced huge prejudice and difficulty when they decided to declare to their family and friends how they really felt about their sexuality. When I spoke at length on the issue in Committee, I mentioned a colleague of mine who was at university with me. When he realised his sexuality in his late teens, rather than face his family, he hanged himself in a toilet in our university. That is the reality of the prejudice and discrimination that many people experience, and that is why it is wrong to have a prejudiced piece of legislation on our statute books.
      I shall be brief because the Liberal Democrats position on section 2A has been clear for a long time. We voted against it when it was first proposed and it has been party policy in successive manifestos to repeal it. Liberal Democrat MPs have voted against it time and again. It was our privilege to move an amendment in Committee, with cross-party support, to remove the section. In particular, I give credit to the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow ) and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for their support.
      Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) confirmed that the Conservatives will have a free vote and the Minister confirmed by nodding earlier that that is also the case for Labour Members. Do we take it that the Liberal Democrats will not have a free vote?
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman can take it that that is case. It is party policy and has been in three, if not four, manifestos.
      David Cairns: I commend the hon. Gentleman's party on that choice. I am sure that the vast majority of my hon. Friends will support his case. We would not dream of allowing a free vote on issues of race discrimination or gender discrimination. I understand the history but, frankly, would prefer my party to take the same stance as the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that comment. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a matter of party policy and demands that approach.
      66
      We tried to get cross-party consensus on the amendment when we moved it in Committee and it is extremely important that the House gets consensus tonight. In yet another vote, we need to give a clear signal to the other place that the mind of the democratic House is made up. It needs to know that we have voted time and again on the issue and that it no longer splits the parties. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made up their mind on it—indeed, some have even changed their mind. We must send a powerful message to the other place, so that it does not try to obstruct the democratic House on the issue yet again. It is time we got rid of the legislation.
      In Committee it was noticeable that the majority of members from all parties voted to delete section 28, or section 2A, whichever one wants to call it. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), and the hon. Members for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and for Poole (Mr. Syms)—all Conservative Members—voted to delete section 28. They were right to do so, and I believe that their example will be followed by many other Conservative Members tonight. I hope we can maximise the Conservative vote tonight. People outside and in the other place know where the majority of Liberal Democrats and Labour Members stand. It is important that we get rid of the issue by as many Conservative Members as possible voting for the amendment. That will be the best way of getting rid of the discrimination once and for all.
      Mr. Graham Brady: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman towards consensus. Many of us have considerable sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), but would vote for the deletion of section 28 only if appropriate other safeguards were in place. If the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) wants consensus and wants members of all parties to support his argument, it would be nice to hear him supporting the idea that parents might have some say about what their children were taught.
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that intervention, which brings me on to my next point. There are already many safeguards to protect children and give parents the power. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 makes it clear that local authorities are not responsible for sex education in schools. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 makes it clear that there is a framework for protecting children. It is a strong framework that had support from all parts of the House. The Education Act 1996, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said, gave parents the right to remove their children from sex education lessons in school if they so wished. The sex and relationship education guidance published by the Government in July 2000, which was so powerfully supported from the Conservative Front Bench, is very clear. It is difficult to understand what further safeguards are required. They are strong and they work.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Has the hon. Gentleman any conception of what it is like for a child to be withdrawn

      67
      deliberately by the parents from any formal instruction? That child is immediately isolated and is often treated in a rather unpleasant way by the rest of the children.
      Mr. Davey: That argument is fallacious. It would be easy to ensure that the removal of the child was done in a sensitive way if the parents spoke to the teacher and the head teacher. There should be no problem about that.
      The Conservative amendment, No. 37, which proposes another approach to give parents choice—through ballots—is one of the most odious amendments to come before the House in a long time. Can the hon. Gentleman imagine what would happen? There would be ballot after ballot led by homophobes trying to change the sex education policy of school after school. It is a recipe for homophobic behaviour on a grand scale. It would not give parents any real choice: it would give homophobes a choice. We should oppose it vigorously.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I did not support the amendment in Committee, and I find it odd that he should believe that democracy is right when democrats would agree with Liberal Democrats, but not right at other times. However, his earlier point was that there was no need for any new safeguard. Will he concede that section 28 covers the organisations covered by section 508, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) read out earlier, including youth clubs, and that no other legislation covers those institutions?
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Davey: I shall give the hon. Gentleman two answers. [Interruption.] He made two points, so he deserves two answers. His first point was that Liberal Democrats do not like democracy in these circumstances. We are Liberal Democrats; we believe in liberal democracy. That means, as the hon. Gentleman as a Member of the House ought to know, that the interests of minorities should be protected under the law. We stand firm and square for that, and I am surprised that he does not.
      On new clause 17, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said, section 28 does not apply to youth clubs. We are concerned about new clause 17 because of the way it could apply. Does it take account of the voluntary sector? Would it apply where a local authority gave some small support to a voluntary-run youth club, possibly scouts or a church club? One of the major flaws in the new clause is that children and young people attend youth clubs on a voluntary basis, according to their parents' wishes. That is quite different from attending school, which is compulsory by law. The parents can decide, after discussion with those running the youth club, whether their children should attend. New clause 17 goes into dangerous territory for the Conservative party, infringing the rights of parents and voluntary groups. I am surprised to see it tabled in the name of Conservative Members.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman was present in Committee and he will have discovered that there is a
      68
      lacuna in the Bill. If the existing section 2A is abolished, there will be no provision for guidance to youth clubs and other bodies. Our new clause specifically refers to those funded by local authorities. Those are public sector bodies. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there needs to be guidance to youth clubs and other such bodies?
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped the point that there are many voluntary youth clubs throughout the country, often scouts and guides, that receive taxpayers' money from local authorities. Many local authorities help the uniformed organisations and voluntary-run organisations and would fall foul of the new clause.
      I shall take no more of the time of the House, as we want to hear from other right hon. and hon. Members. It is time the House grew up, realised how our constituents are living out there, stopped hiding in the past, and removed this odious legislation from the statute book once and for all.
      Kali Mountford: As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) rightly said, the essence of the debate is the education, protection and care of children. That is what we should focus on—how we nurture children's minds so that, as adults, they can operate properly in society. That is the aim of education, of growing up, of youth clubs, of voluntary sector organisations, of parents, governors and teachers. The problem with section 28 is that that is not its aim. Section 28 has been bypassed by subsequent legislation and by society's increasing acceptance of difference.
      When we deal with difference, we need to be honest with children. As sure as eggs is eggs, children will notice if we are not telling them the truth. Any parent knows that if a child asks us a question and we try to sidestep it rather than dealing with it directly and honestly in a way that he or she can understand, he or she will not only not believe us on that occasion, but will probably not believe anything we say ever after. That means that as early as a child asks, "Why is uncle Fred living with uncle George?" we have to tell them. As early as a child says, "Mummy, I've just seen two men holding hands," or, "That girl just kissed that other girl," if we do not tell the truth about the reason behind it, the child will never believe us on that or on anything else. Education must be in the context of the world we live in, not the world we would like to live in. Where a school is in a community, the education from that school must reflect not only the ethos of the school but the community and families from which pupils of that school are drawn. If parents have the opportunity to choose a school—we must all accept that that choice is not available to everybody, for a variety of reasons, such as ability to travel, and, in some circumstances, ability to pay—to some extent, they have a voice within that school. That is what many hon. Members are concerned about. It has been said that hon. Members would feel more comforted in supporting the withdrawal of section 28 if some other protection were in place. I ask those Members to consider carefully what they think is happening, what is really happening, and what might be the effect of proposed legislation.
      What is happening now? In schools, the curriculum committee that is required of every governing body of every state-funded school must include a teacher,

      69
      a parent and other members of the governing body, and it must approve the curriculum of the school. If parents are not happy with the curriculum devised, not only can they remove the child if they want to do so but they can object to the curriculum overall. That curriculum needs to be agreed by the school, and that is part of what we do now.
      Mr. Brady: How many parents examine the material that is used in schools in sex education? Surely the hon. Lady cannot imagine that the system works as well as possible, and that parents are always making an informed decision in that process.
      Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I have experience not only as a parent but as a grandparent: I have three grandchildren in primary education, and I also have a child aged 19 in education, so I can see the whole range of education in my family. If a child came home with a story about something inappropriate that had happened at school, I cannot imagine the parents not noticing. The prospect of sending curriculum material to every parent for approval would be dire. Curriculum bodies allow representatives of parents to represent the view of the community to the governing body. That is the purpose of setting up the governing body in that way.
      My problem with amendment No. 17 is that it would ask every parent to vet curriculum material—on an annual basis, I presume, as curriculum material changes all the time—which would be a nightmare. I cannot see how that could work. The representation of parents on governing bodies is working well and has been working well for some time. The evidence that it is working well is that we do not have a flood of parents knocking on our constituency office door saying, "Good heavens, my child has been looking at this material today, and I object strongly." If a parent did so, I would represent their view, but it has never happened.
      The proof of that is in the experience. Since section 28 was introduced, people have not been bringing forward such material. That is not because of the protection of section 28, because, as we know, section 28 has been overtaken by events. The protection has been the good sense of the parents, teachers and governors on the governing body who decide the curriculum. That has worked well for a long time, and it has been enhanced still further by the guidance that has been produced. Hon. Members may want to enshrine that guidance in law, but I think there are difficulties with that. Such an approach does not recognise the very thing that is special about schools—the fact that they are founded in the communities in which they are placed. In a predominantly Muslim area, the curriculum may be taken in a particular direction suited to the community. A predominantly Christian area or Christian school may have a particular direction for their education, too. That is to be welcomed, and it recognises the breadth of culture, religion and diversity that we have in Communities.
      Enshrining that in legislation becomes extremely difficult. At the moment, a school can reflect the ethos of the community in which it is based, but enshrining that in legislation would fix that at the point at which we are now, and would not allow for the constant changes in communities. We are living in a dynamic society that
      70
      changes constantly, and we must recognise not only the changes in society overall but changes in education and what is thought appropriate. What we thought 50 years ago, and what we thought when I was at school, is very different from what we think now. Parliament can set out certain broad objectives that a school might want to achieve, but I have never thought that Parliament is the right to place to decide on the day-by-day aspects of a school's curriculum. That level of detail, and that level of imposition on family life, seem profoundly wrong.
      That kind of decision should not be taken in this place, because it strips out all the usefulness of the contact between parents and schools. We should treasure that contact, which is not achieved through a bureaucratic process and a ballot. Balloting on these issues does not bring out the best in everybody. All that happens when we have ballots is that entrenched positions develop on either side and debate is polarised, and groups with different sets of values pull the community apart. It is not about cohesion or bringing people together, and that is very wrong, certainly for children. I would not want my children to be placed in a school in which such debates started to divide communities.
      These are questions for the family. The morality that I want in my family—we have, I hope, very high moral standards—comes from the family, what we believe, and what we discuss at home. It is sad and a shame that there are some families in which such discussions do not take place. We cannot say that the proper place for all that discussion is school. We must not be directive to that extent. I have strong feelings about how I want my children to be: I want them to be caring, open and accepting of other people. I do not want them to go to a school that closes down their minds in relation to accepting and caring for different kinds of families
      Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Lady not accept that the nub of this debate is not about accepting or tolerating but about promoting, which is a different thing altogether?
      Kali Mountford: I am sad that that has been raised, as it relates to the differences between what people believe and what is true. The fact that someone believes something does not make it true. It is a complete myth that sexuality can be promoted. Members of my family are gay, straight and transsexual, too. Are we saying that any of those people have a lesser or greater place in the family or in society? Of course we are not. If someone were to beg me, on their knees, to be gay, I could not be, because I am not gay. No more could I say to anyone I know who is gay, "You must be straight." It is not possible to promote a particular sexuality as having a greater value than another. I strongly and firmly attest and believe that one's sexuality is as much a part of oneself as any other aspect.
      We can no more lop off an arm than change our sexuality—lit would be a denial of oneself. It is wrong headed and a complete myth to suggest that sexuality can be promoted. If it could, everyone would be straight because, when we go to school, to be gay is to be different and normality is promoted—whatever a normal family is. Two parents married for all time with two children and everyone living happily ever after is the preferred and promoted state in schools, and that is supported by guidance, yet people are gay.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Brazier: Does the hon. Lady not accept that, among children, it is wrong to promote sexuality at all and that when a child of 12 becomes pregnant, as has happened in the village next to mine, it suggests that there is too much encouragement of sex among people who are years under the age of consent? I ask the hon. Lady to consider new clause 21, which addresses that wider issue.
      Kali Mountford: I would happily go some way with what the hon. Gentleman says about the sexualisation of children, but the new clause that he appears to support would not do much about it. The sexualisation of children is not happening in schools, or even necessarily youth clubs; it is happening in a wider sense, and I deplore it. I do not like the idea of little children wearing adult clothes and behaving in an adult way; that is quite wrong, but it is not happening in schools, and it is certainly not being promoted in them. If it were promoted in the schools where my children are taught, I could imagine that fleets of parents would go down to the school saying, "What on earth are you doing telling my five-year-old that Barbie is an essential part of life and that little girls of five should be like Barbie?" That is not the way that we expect our schools to behave now.
      Mr. Bryant: Is not the truth of the matter that children are talking about sex day in day out, and that, rather than promoting anything, it is often a case of answering their questions and correcting some of the myths?
      Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend, as ever, is entirely right, and what he says takes me back to the beginning of my remarks: children will always, and should always, ask questions. Without asking questions, how can they know anything? If we do not tell the truth, they will make things up, and the myths about how children are born will continue. I do not want to make the House any more squeamish than it has been made by earlier remarks, but I recently read that some teenagers believe cling film is an appropriate form of contraception. I will not go into how the cling film is used; hon. Members can use their imaginations. That sort of problem leads to what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) rightly pointed out—too many teenage pregnancies—but that can be dealt with only by answering the questions that young people ask about their own feelings, their own relationships and how they fit in.
      Very often, peer group pressure, rather than a teacher trying to instil an idea into a child, is the greatest problem. Those ideas are already being propagated all the time in the playground, after school and wherever young people congregate on street corners, and we must be empowered to challenge them. We must be able to say to young people that some behaviour is not appropriate in a relationship—it is not loving, caring or responsible—and that males and females are not respecting each other's bodies or the child that might result.
      All sorts of things are included in the guidance that the hon. Member for Cotswold rightly commended to the House, but I differ with him about enshrining such
      72
      things in law for the very difficult reasons that I have mentioned. My problem is that the guidance would be rigid and fixed for all time.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
      Kali Mountford: If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell me how he could change the guidance, he may.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: First, I said that the guidance could be changed by statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure, which is how we would enshrine it in law.
      Secondly, does the hon. Lady accept that the written statement will sometimes depart from the guidance? In those circumstances, how are parents supposed to make their views known in their children's school, other than by withdrawing them from the sex education in that school, which is not desirable, as I am sure the hon. Lady would admit? Our mechanism of having a ballot—I expect that it would be used very rarely—would provide those parents with that safeguard.
      Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman says that the measure would be used very rarely. Thank goodness for that, as it shows that the good sense of teachers and governors, which I have already outlined, will prevail. I cannot imagine how the measure would be used at all because the current system is working well.
      It has been established in Committee and repeated on the Floor of the House today that section 28 is obsolete. The hon. Member for Cotswold has accepted that many times in debate. If the guidance is working well now, and since hon. Members have not been able to cite a single complaint from parents who have not been able to influence the school, what is section 28 for? Why not allow the variety of education that exists to continue, so that education can be as dynamic as we would want it to be?
      Mr. David Wilshire: I speak in favour of amendment No. 8. It is a long time since I have said anything in public about section 28. Although I tabled the related amendment to the Local Government Bill in 1987, I have kept out of the debate for some years now. In view of all that has happened and all the things have been said in the past 15 years and again this evening, I thought it might be helpful if I could try to get the debate back to the reality of section 28 and away from the assertions and assumptions that have been made ever since.
      I listened with great care to the impassioned speech made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), and I pay my respects to him for saying what he said. He said that the Bishop of Oxford was wrong and he knew it. May I say, as gently as I possibly can, that the hon. Gentleman's views of the purposes behind section 28 are wrong? I tabled it, and I hope that he will accept that none of the assertions that he has made were in my mind in the time.
      When I arrived in the House for the first time in 1987, I had spent 11 years in local government at a time when various councils and councillors were wasting huge

      73
      sums of public money and using large sums of public money to achieve social change that the overwhelming majority of people in this country did not want.
      Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Wilshire: I will not because of time, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
      I was enthusiastically opposed to what I saw as a misuse of money then, and I remain so now.
      I suffered the fate of all new Members of Parliament; I was unceremoniously dumped on to a Standing Committee. No one took the trouble to tell me that, as a Government Back Bencher, I was not supposed to say or do anything, so I tabled an amendment. Little did I realise what I was unleashing when I did so. I doubt that many other MPs have been accused of causing people to abseil from the Public Gallery on to the Floor of another place. I do not think that many other MPs, at least not in the past century, have been blamed for a siege of Parliament. Indeed, I got a fair amount of hate mail and a fair amount of publicity, most of it unflattering.
      It might be relevant to say, perhaps in my own defence, that I gave an interview to a newspaper called Capital Gay. I do not know whether it still exists, but on 5 February 1988, it published the outcome of that interview and the start of the article is as relevant now as it was then.
      It says:
      "David Wilshire is not a bigot. I repeat: David Wilshire—the man who introduced Clause 28 into Parliament—is not a bigot.
      Confused, ignorant and illogical—Yes. Stupid, even. But bigoted he is not."
      To this day, I protest that section 28 has nothing to do with bigotry, and it certainly had nothing to do with bigotry when I introduced it.
      My focus 15 years ago was on the use and misuse of taxpayers' money. It had nothing to do then—and it has nothing to do now—with lifestyles or making moral judgments.
      Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wilshire: Forgive me, but many other Members wish to speak.
      At that time, councils were intentionally attempting to promote homosexuality. It may be argued that one cannot promote it, but councils were trying to do so at that time. There were plenty examples of that. Some councils portrayed alternative families as the same as the ones that we all know. Councils were using taxpayers' money to do that. All that section 28 said then and all that it says now is, "You simply mustn't use taxpayers' money to do that sort of thing." Section 28 passed no judgment on individuals. It left them free to do whatever they wished. I defend their right to do that. I agree totally with almost all that the hon. Member for Rhondda said. I have no problems when it comes to an individual issue. It is the use of taxpayers' money that concerns me.
      Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wilshire: Yes, as I have now mentioned the hon. Gentleman twice.
      Mr. Bryant: I accept that the hon. Gentleman considers himself not to be a bigot, but the phrase that
      74
      many people find profoundly offensive and bigoted is "pretended family relationship". Does he not accept that?
      Mr. Wilshire: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. If we were to get into a debate about lifestyles, that point would apply. However, all that I was saying then and all that I am saying now is that one must not use taxpayers' money for such things. Fifteen years later, I am still opposed to the use of taxpayers' money in that way. I believe that section 28 was necessary because money was being used for those purposes. I believe that section 28 has worked, because the things that were happening stopped. If local government has no wish to promote or to attempt to promote homosexuality, what is the fuss all about? All the add-on issues and concerns that the hon. Gentleman and others have raised have nothing to do with section 28. There is an ethical debate to be had, but section 28 should not be used as the vehicle for that debate.
      I hope that, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow for a vote to be held on amendment No. 8. I certainly want one, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) who tabled the amendment. I make that formal request now. On balance—I stress the phrase "on balance"—I have no regrets at what I did 15 years ago. I believed then that what I was doing was right, and I believe that, by voting for the amendment, I will be doing what I still believe to be right.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Borrow: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak after the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who explained the heart of the problems that we are debating. It is the assumption that homosexuality can be promoted and therefore that, by spending public money, one can increase the proportion of the population that is homosexual. In itself, that statement is totally stupid; there is no evidence for it whatever.
      The hon. Gentleman's proposal that central Government should legislate in specific areas to stop local government wasting money is rather stupid. Local government wastes money in many other areas, and we rely on the electorate to boot out councillors who waste public money. Parliament does not introduce individual clauses year after year to stop individual councillors wasting a bit of money here and there.
      The hon. Gentleman assumes that section 28 was all about preventing the waste of public money. That may have been the reason why he introduced it and he may not be a bigot. However, I was deeply offended when section 28 was passed and, in my first year as a member of Preston borough council, I was able to persuade the council to pass a resolution against the provision. For me and many other gay men and lesbians, section 28 and, in particular, the reference to "pretended family relationship" is deeply offensive. I regard my relationship with my partner in the same way as my sisters would regard their relationships with their married partners. To enshrine in legislation something that is so partial and so deeply offensive to a minority of the population should cause every hon. Member to think deeply about whether that is what we are sent here to do.

      75
      I look forward to the removal of section 28. I also smiled somewhat at the assumption that sexuality can be promoted. I went to school in the west riding of Yorkshire in the 1950s and 1960s, and the concept that homosexuality existed was unknown to me. I was totally unaware that an alternative to marriage existed. Sex education should be taught in such a way that adolescent boys and girls who are struggling with their sexuality feel that they can have a happy future if they turn out to be gay. I hope that the vast majority who turn out to be heterosexual will grow up to be tolerant, caring and loving to everyone and that prejudices and bigotry will not be supported by legislation, however innocently that legislation may have been introduced in the first place.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Many exaggerated claims have been made about section 28. Some say that it prevents any discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, that it prevents teachers from tackling bullying and that it is a "hate clause". None of that is true. The circular that was issued to accompany the provision in 1988 makes it clear, for example, that objective discussion of homosexuality is not affected by section 28.
      Section 28 is about the use of local authority money for the active promotion of homosexuality. Certain subjects in our society are controversial. Politics is one and religion is another. Sexuality is a controversial subject on which people have differing views. We hear a lot of talk about respect when the subject is raised. I am concerned that there should be respect for the views of parents.
      I am very relaxed about what people do in private. That is their own business. I do not seek to condemn people for what they do. Like most of the British public, I am realistic about these things. However, most people do not want homosexuality promoted to children in school or elsewhere. We are not extreme people. Like most people, I am tolerant of homosexuals. Those who simply hate homosexual people are, thankfully, in a tiny minority. I doubt whether a single person in the House falls into that category.
      I use the word "tolerant" deliberately. Most British people are tolerant of homosexual people. They may know homosexuals and they like them as people, as I do. However, whether we like it or not, many people in this country—their views should not be dismissed—think that homosexual practice, with the emphasis on the word "practice", is wrong. That is what tolerance means—putting up with something that one believes to be wrong.
      I have tabled an amendment to retain section 28 partly because I believe that there should be a debate on the subject. If I had not tabled it, there would have been no debate on a matter that is important to the British people, whatever their views. I tabled it also because I believe that section 28 is right and represents the wishes of the majority of the British public. We must be careful when legislating on such a contentious subject and dealing with whether council tax payers' money is spent on promoting views that many people find controversial.
      76
      Should local authorities tell children to try experimenting sexually with boys and girls to ascertain with whom they feel most comfortable? Some local authorities recommend materials that advise exactly that. Should sex education in schools be conducted in a moral vacuum? My answer is no. Protection such as section 28 should exist. There is anxiety about what schools teach about politics and religion; sex education is the same sort of subject. Some appalling materials should not be promoted for use in our schools.
      We should be careful and consider not simply what politically correct views dictate, or the wishes of a specific minority group, but the genuine wishes of ordinary people who have children. They want their children to be protected and to know that local authorities will do nothing in schools, youth groups or elsewhere to undermine the moral values that they have attempted to instil in their children.
      One reason for retaining section 28 is that it works. If it did not, the Government would not have spent so much parliamentary time and political capital on trying to repeal it. If it were truly redundant, as some allege, it could remain on the statute book, unused and forgotten. However, gay rights supporters and the Government want to repeal it because they know that it works.
      Mrs. Annette L. BrookeWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Leigh: I shall do so later, but others want to speak and I want to make my point. However, if the hon. Lady wishes to intervene later, I shall give way to her.
      Gay rights groups want to repeal section 28 because they want public subsidy for their work. They know that they would not receive much money if they promoted their cause in the high street. People will give to charities that look after the poor and so on, but they will not knowingly fund the promotion of homosexuality or any other sexual special interest group. Public money has breathed life into groups, which, if left alone, would make little headway and would not survive. Such groups need public money. Gay rights groups know that some councillors are sympathetic to pushing public cash their way. Section 28 stops them doing that. Extreme local authorities that would like to promote homosexuality often do not do so because they are afraid of section 28.
      In 1992, only four years after the provision was introduced, Peter Tatchell of the gay rights group Outrage! complained that he knew of at least 35 instances of self-censorship by local authorities that feared prosecution under section 28. Councillors know that if they approve ultra vires expenditure, they can be forced to pay back council tax payers' money out of their pockets. That is a sobering thought. They also know that a council tax payer who objects to the unlawful use of his money can seek judicial review.
      In Scotland in 2000, a nurse sued Glasgow city council for breach of section 28. She succeeded in stopping a council-funded youth group, with members as young as 12, that used extremely explicit homosexual pornography. The council was forced to ensure that its grants were not used to promote homosexuality. The nurse's case was so strong that even when the action had to be dropped because the Scottish Parliament deleted section 28, Glasgow city council agreed to pay its legal costs.

      77
      Some councillors do not want to fund gay groups, but hide behind section 28. They fear the vitriol that the gay rights lobby might pour on them for refusing to support them. They say, "I'm sorry. I'd like to fund your gay rights venture but I simply can't because of section 28." If that is one of the ways in which the provision operates, that is fine—its purpose is fulfilled.
      The current law works. It prevents the promotion of a lifestyle with which many disagree. The wording is clear; parents understand it and that it is why they like it. It reassures them about what their local authority is teaching their children, especially in schools. Gay rights groups know what it means. That is why they dislike it. It means that the statute book states that promoting homosexuality is undesirable.
      Mrs. Brooke: Is the hon. Gentleman worried by the fact that many teachers dislike section 28 because they have felt inhibited about giving essential guidance to troubled adolescents?
      Mr. Leigh: Nothing in section 28 prevents a balanced discussion in the classroom of sexuality, homosexuality or anything else.
      Let me deal with the Conservative party because it is important to understand our position. Conservative Front-Bench Members fear that, if they support section 28 they will be perceived as acting against a minority, and that that will lose us support in the country. I do not believe that. The only people who raise gay rights issues at election time are gay rights activists. On the doorstep, voters are worried about crime, education and health.
      Homosexual people vote Conservative because they believe in Conservative values and not because the party plays up to a minority rights agenda. We cannot appease every interest group. Tory Members could vote en masse for repeal today but I doubt whether it would sway more than a few hundred voters in the country. In my experience, those who are most stridently critical of traditional Tory party policy on section 28 would not vote Conservative anyway.
      Some people hold conventional views and like section 28, but believe that it should go because it is a totem to others. Such arguments have been made today. They perceive that a small minority has strong personal feelings about the provision. That is undeniable, but it is not a good enough reason to change a law. Some people feel strongly that recreational use of cannabis should be legal, but that is not enough for Parliament.
      I stress, especially to my hon. Friends, that we must make a moral judgment. I hear the sound of hackles rising, but we make moral judgments all the time in the House. We decide that it is moral to tax people and threaten them with criminal proceedings unless they pay. We force people to pay income tax because we believe that it is moral to do that to fund public services. We disagree about the extent of taxation but we cannot deny that we make a moral judgment. We do so all the time.
      We make moral judgments about criminalising people. We will shortly consider the Sexual Offences Bill, which will criminalise some forms of incest for the first time. It will provide that a person who has any sexual contact with someone who is under 16 commits a criminal offence. Most hon. Members support that. However, it is a moral judgment.
      78
      In the past, some hon. Members laughed when I said that I have friends who are homosexual. I mention that to rebut the calumny, which is often thrown at people with views such as mine, that we are hateful, spiteful, prejudiced or bigoted and that we openly or secretly wish homosexual people to suffer. We are accused of condoning physical violence against homosexual people or stirring up such violence, and of being equivalent to racists. We are nothing of the sort. We are simply making a judgment that is based on our religion or our moral beliefs about the family. It is based on profound conviction. We make a judgment about people's actions, not their inherent, inborn traits, the colour of their skin or their genes. I accept that we make a moral judgment, but I believe that we are entitled to make it.
      Those who are open and honest about their moral judgments do not hate the people who engage in the act of which they disapprove. That would be thoroughly unchristian. However, they believe that the act is wrong. Sometimes in this House, we have to have the moral courage to stand up for what we believe in. When we are talking about protecting children and young people, we must stand up for what we believe to be right.
      7 pm
      Section 28 is a statement that there is no moral equivalence between homosexuality and heterosexuality. I make that moral statement. I know that it is controversial and that it is not accepted by many people in this House, but I make it in the knowledge that many other people in this country believe it to be true. It is the view of very many parents who are interested not in the gay rights agenda, but in bringing up their children, just as I want to do, to be moral, responsible, self-controlled and right-thinking members of society. They care about preserving the values that are important to them. Why should they be called names just for doing the right thing for their children?
      I commend amendment No. 8 to the House.
      Mr. Shaun Woodward: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) spoke about getting the debate back to reality. I say this to the hon. Gentleman, who is not in his place: it may be that his intentions were honourable and related to saving taxpayers' money, but the unintended consequences of the legislation have been appalling. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) set out the reality of the position from one perspective. As a trustee of Childline, I have to tell the House that I have heard the reality from kids speaking at the end of a phone line about the lack of protection that they have received because of the uncertainty in their schools.
      The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spoke about the importance of protecting children from bullying. He is absolutely right to talk about that, but section 28 was a charter to allow some bullying to take place on the ground of homophobia. However much Opposition Front Benchers shake their heads about that, I simply say to them that they should come and listen to the children whom we talk to at Childline and hear about the pain that they suffer. He may stick to his principles and believe that the measure could not possibly have that effect, but the reality is that it did.
      This issue is not about wasting taxpayers' money. Indeed. Childline has to raise money and is one of a number of charities that have to do so to fund work to

      79
      clear up the damage done by pernicious measures such as section 28. The reality is that section 28 passed judgment. That was most brilliantly—if one can use those words to mean "in a shining sense"—shown in the words "pretended family relationship". That phrase caused huge hurt and, indeed, it was intended by some to do so. That was at the heart of section 28 and it has damaged people. One of the finer things that we will be doing this year in our legislation is ridding the statute book of this nasty and pernicious measure.
      The word "promotion" was a very clever one to use. That may not have been the intention, but it was unintentionally very clever. Why? Those of us who thought that section 28 was a bad measure had to say, if we supported its repeal, that we wanted homosexuality to be promoted. If we wanted it to be repealed, it apparently followed that we wanted homosexuality to be promoted. That is why the provision was so clever and why some of the press that I enjoyed three years ago was so unpleasant about me, as, apparently, I wanted to promote homosexuality.
      I do not want the promotion of homosexuality or heterosexuality. What I want is responsible teaching in our schools to help children to cope with growing up. I say to the hon. Member for Cotswold that it does not help to take pieces of guidance for teachers in Scotland, deliberately to twist the way in which they were intended to be used and say that such material would be absolutely terrifying if it fell into the hands of schoolchildren. He knows that it was not intended to fall into the hands of schoolchildren and there is no question about that. Of course, such an approach can pervert the way in which we talk about the issue. Once again, it is tragic to see, when so many Conservative Members have now changed their minds—
      Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Woodward: I shall not.
      Many Conservative Members have changed their minds for all the best of reasons, but, unfortunately, underneath it all, among some members of the Conservative party, there is still a willingness to say, "Somewhere underneath all this, teachers really want to promote this stuff and it's all very nasty."
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) constantly spoke about being a parent, so I shall do so in return. I have a son and three daughters. One of them may grow up to be gay or they all might not be gay. What I know is that, because of their ages, they are all passing through periods of growing up and are becoming adults and going through sexual experiences in changing from a child to an adult. I am glad if teachers are encouraged to gain understanding. The hon. Member for Cotswold referred to the word "clitoris". I have an 11-year-old daughter, a nine-year-old daughter and a six-year-old daughter. I am not ashamed that that word is contained in guidance to teachers. If my 11-year-old child, who is experiencing the passage of growing up, can talk with her teachers about such things and not feel ashamed and scared about it, that is a good thing and the hon. Gentleman should not be afraid of it.
      80
      I say to the hon. Member for Cotswold and his party that they lecture the Labour party on not trusting teachers and tell us that we give them too much red tape and guidance, but at the first opportunity for a free vote, they immediately want to invent guidance, regulations and red tape to tell teachers what to do in the classroom. I am prepared to trust teachers on his issue. When I was in the Conservative party, I was told that this issue was all about family values. I have always felt that it is about family values, because I do not think that family values are simply the ones that some in his party would wish to say that families were about. Families are complex things. They come in all shapes and sizes. The important thing is the love, attention and nurturing that we give to our children.
      Mr. Alan Duncan: There is a crucial issue that the House has not discussed today. Is it not the case that, in passing the Adoption and Children Act 2002, we last year institutionalised in law homosexual parenthood as an actual family relationship? Therefore, if a council were to look for gay parents under the law that this House has passed, it could fall foul of section 28. There is a conflict.
      Mr. Woodward: Over the years since my little local difficulty with the Conservative party, the hon. Gentleman and I have not always seen eye to eye, but he is absolutely right on this one. Once again, the crucial issue is the love that can be provided by one or two people, whether they are of different sexes or the same sex, for a child. That must be reflected in the school environment, local authorities and everywhere else where a child is brought up.
      This issue is not about tolerance, as some hon. Members have said. As long as it is seen as being only about tolerance, we have not moved very far. It is about fairness and equality. It is about equality because we are all capable of loving each other, although that may happen for different reasons and in different circumstances. The hon. Member for Gainsborough said—I think that he denigrated his argument by doing so—that the issue was all about the gay rights special lobby. Frankly, there is every reason for those in that lobby to undertake special pleading about some of the devastatingly cruel things that have been done to people who are gay, but the issue is not about special pleading. It is simply about saying, "Let's all treat each other in the same way." There is no special pleading; it is about fairness and about everybody being equal under the law.
      Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that, in an age of pervasive cynicism about Punch and Judy politics, it is important not to oppose, criticise or formulate alternative policies for the sake of doing so? I will vote for repeal and against the obnoxious amendments, and I shall also be against other risible amendments that are really designed to save face.
      Mr. Woodward: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; this issue is not about political correctness, but fairness. In that sense, I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough that it is about a moral judgment—the moral judgment to be fair and to allow everybody to be treated equally.

      81
      That is what is at the heart of getting rid of this very nasty measure. It is about scrapping those who would use it to hide their prejudices and fears, because they have nothing to be fearful about. What people have to fear is prejudice out there doing harm. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda mentions the 12 people who are on the end of being gay bashed and murdered each year, year in, year out, the hon. Member for Gainsborough should think about that. If the legislation before us saves one life, let alone 12 lives—or 120 in 10 years—it will be a very good thing that we do tonight.
      Section 28 is a dreadful measure, and we should get rid of it. Let us hope that if anything is infectious, it is the spirit of Conservative Members who will vote to do so tonight. Let us hope that they can pass on their enthusiasm to their colleagues in another place.
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have had a mixed debate, including a number of passionate, impressive speeches revealing deep understanding of the complex, sensitive issues with which we are dealing. We have also heard speeches that seemed curiously redolent of a previous era when prejudice, stereotypes and divisiveness were in the ascendancy.
      Our debates on this subject send important messages about our attitudes to tolerance, fairness and inclusion. Those messages are relevant both to the wider public and to the other place. This evening's debate will receive a great deal more attention from the wider public and the media than did our debate in Committee, which was generally a high-level and impressive debate. The outcome in Committee was that a majority of Members in each of the political parties voted to repeal section 28. There was an overwhelming vote of 19 to two in favour of repeal. Fourteen Labour Members voted for repeal, and none voted against.
      Mr. Paul Goodman: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: I ask the hon. Gentleman to restrain himself. I was about to refer to him.
      Four Conservative Members voted for the repeal of section 28. Two, including the hon. Gentleman, did not. One Liberal Democrat Member voted for repeal. In total, 19 Members were in favour of repeal and only two were in favour of retention. That sends a powerful message that I hope will be echoed in this debate and listened to very carefully in the other place. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Goodman: Will the Minister concede that the debate in Committee was extremely brief, and that not all Members who wanted to speak got the chance to do so?
      Mr. Raynsford: We had a long debate; it lasted almost a whole sitting of the Committee. There were frequent interventions, including some from the hon. Gentleman. I certainly did not get the impression that the debate was curtailed in any way, and the issues were covered thoroughly, as they have been tonight.
      82
      There are several amendments and new clauses in this group, and I shall begin with those that seek to disturb the substantial degree of agreement on the principle of repeal. Amendment No. 8 and amendments Nos. 10 to 18 seek to remove clause 119 and the associated consequential amendments, thereby preserving section 28. I do not intend to go over all the ground on the principle of repeal. The Government's position on that is clear: section 28 is an unnecessary measure that many people find deeply offensive, because it stigmatises certain lifestyles. We are committed to tackling actual and perceived discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and section 28 is widely perceived as discriminatory. We should remove that unnecessary measure; it has caused offence and confusion for long enough.
      The other amendments and new clauses seek to introduce purported safeguards or to delay implementation, based on concerns about the possible effect of repeal. They are not necessary and they would have no beneficial effect.
      Mr. Bercow: I agree with the Minister that section 28 has caused too much pain to too many people for too long. Is he, as the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, interested to hear that I was informed by the Department for Education and Skills last week that it is not aware of having a received a single complaint in the last six months about the sex and relationship education guidance issued in July 2000? Is it not a case of game, set and match?
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: That is clear important evidence that the current arrangements work well, and that there is absolutely no need for a change. As I shall go on to make clear, section 28 is wholly irrelevant to what is taught in schools, and the hon. Gentleman's point is valid.
      Interestingly, many of the amendments appear to be based on the continuing misconception that section 28 has an impact on sex education in schools, which is a clear illustration of the confusion that the measure has engendered. Local education authorities have no say in what is taught in schools. The Education Act 1996, as amended, places the responsibility for sex education in schools firmly on teachers and governors. It gives the Secretary of State a statutory duty to issue guidance on sex and relationship education. It explicitly states that parents should be involved in developing a school's policy. Local authorities do not determine schools' sex education policies, so none of that is affected by the repeal of section 28.
      Section 405 of the 1996 Act provides a further safeguard by enabling parents to withdraw their children from the non-statutory elements of sex education in schools—that is, the parts of the national curriculum that are not covered through science. Few parents see the need to make use of that safeguard. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the Department for Education and Skills has received no complaints about the issue in the past six months. Indeed, since the guidance was introduced, the level of parental withdrawal has stood at well under 1 per cent. That represents an overwhelming endorsement of the framework that has been in place for nearly three years.

      83
      New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to report every two years on the effect of the repeal of section 28 on a number of issues: adherence to the guidance that I have mentioned, the operation of the requirement for schools to make their policies available for inspection by parents, and the number of parents withdrawing their children from sex education lessons. That measure is simply not necessary. The fundamental point remains that, as I have said, local authorities have no locus in determining schools' sex education policies, and we have in place a robust framework, which will not be affected by the repeal of section 28. Surely there is no need to report on a measure that will have no effect.
      The amendments to new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) would add a requirement to report on the operation of guidance for bodies established by local authorities for recreation and social and physical training. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is focusing on youth clubs in particular. Authorities have a duty to ensure that education provision in their area includes adequate facilities of that kind. They may choose to provide those directly, or others may provide them. The amendments are technically flawed because section 508 of the 1996 Act enables local authorities to provide such facilities, which is very different from establishing bodies, as suggested in the amendment; I shall deal with the wider issue of those facilities under new clause 17. However, I do not want to argue simply on technicalities; I regard the amendments as inappropriate.
      New clause 17 would prevent local authorities from providing financial support to such facilities unless the authority was satisfied that any sex or relationship guidance offered by the facility complied with the sex and relationship education guidance issued by the Department for Education and Skills. That is an unnecessary bureaucratic burden, which the Opposition seek to foist on to local government and the voluntary sector. It shows that the purported concern with greater freedom for local government that we heard Opposition Members voicing in Committee is as flimsy as we always suspected. Indeed, the new clause could well put at risk the continued operation of valued youth centres and similar projects.
      Let us consider a scenario in which a local authority is presented with a malicious unfounded complaint against a youth club operated by a voluntary agency, so it feels inhibited from giving any financial support to that body until the investigation has been completed. In the meantime, the organisation could cease to exist or be put out of business. That would be the consequence of the new clause; indeed, it would be the consequence of many of the elements associated with section 28. It would encourage homophobia and prejudice and allow bigots to interfere with proper service delivery. We should have no truck with that.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: It is perfectly open to the Minister to present the extreme argument about an organisation collapsing for want of support during an investigation. He shakes his head at the word "extreme",
      84
      but his argument does seem to me extreme. Does he concede that without new clause 17 there will be nothing to cover such organisations?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, for the reasons that I shall give—but first let me put it on record that I was not presenting an extreme scenario. Having worked for many years in the voluntary sector, I know only too well how difficult life is for voluntary organisations that are dependent on local authorities. If malicious complaints are made about voluntary organisations and their funding is withdrawn, their whole operation can be threatened.
      The position in relation to youth clubs is important, and I undertook to make it clear. The guidance issued by the DFES is primarily for schools. There are clear reasons for that. Parents have a right to expect a framework to exist to provide adequate protection for their children while they are in school. By contrast, attendance at youth clubs and other facilities providing recreation and social and physical training is voluntary. Many are run by Churches and voluntary organisations, and it is for parents to decide whether they wish their children to attend them. Nevertheless, the guidance specifically refers to youth workers and other professionals.
      The guidance makes it clear that schools should work in partnership with the wider community and that health professionals, social workers, youth workers and peer educators working in schools should abide by the school's policy on sex education. The guidance also states that it would be inappropriate for any professional providing sex education to promote a particular sexuality. To quote paragraph 6.7 of the guidance:
      "It is inappropriate for youth workers, as with any professional, to promote sexual orientation. They will be expected to respect this guidance when dealing with school age children. Individual views should not affect the independent advice given to the young person concerned."
      The guidance has been the subject of plaudits from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) emphasised the fact that it is well written and balanced. Guidance to youth workers is also available from other nationally recognised bodies. For example, the National Youth Agency has produced materials that can help to inform sexual relationship education work by youth workers.
      The position that I have described is the correct and responsible one. Guidance sets out what we expect of those who deal with children, while reflecting parents' role in deciding whether their children attend youth clubs and other facilities provided outside schools, many of which are not provided by local authorities. In our view, authorities should act as community leaders. They know what is expected of them and they should act responsibly. They should not promote any specific lifestyle choice, but they should be able to provide services that meet local needs and support organisations that meet the needs of their communities. The new clause is misguided and unnecessary.
      New clause 21 would require a local authority, in exercising any of its functions in relation to school age children, to ensure that there was a balanced presentation of views in any case in which the morality of sex outside marriage was raised as an issue. That is an unnecessary proposal. I have already made the basic

      85
      points. Local authorities have no say over what sex and relationship education is taught in schools. The guidance to which I have referred was described as reasonable and balanced by the hon. Member for Cotswold. As I have already said, we expect professionals operating in non-school settings to respect the guidance when working with young people of school age. There is no evidence that those arrangements are not working satisfactorily, and the House should reject this inoperable and unnecessary proposal.
      Amendment No. 37 is palpably a delaying mechanism designed to defer commencement of the repeal of section 28. It proposes that before repeal happens, the Secretary of State should certify that sexual relationship education guidance has been issued—that seems curious, given that I have a copy here and it has been available for three years—and that a mechanism should be established to allow parents to be balloted on the school's policy. The first requirement is wholly redundant. As for the second, the Education Act 1996 requires that schools work with parents in devising their sex education policies and that schools' statements on their policies are made available to parents. The guidance specifically addresses the issue of parental involvement and makes it clear that that should be ongoing, saying that it is "essential" that parents be regularly consulted on sex education in schools, especially when the contents are being reviewed. Those arrangements are between schools and parents. Section 28 has no bearing on them.
      In the light of that, and of parents' ability to withhold their children from sex education lessons, we believe that balloting parents, quite apart from being bureaucratic, costly and potentially divisive, is an unnecessary requirement. An effective sex and relationship education programme is not a matter for crosses on ballot papers, which could, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) rightly said, turn out to be a recipe for homophobia.
      We have established a successful and robust framework that ensures that clear guidance is in place, allows for some local discretion on the part of governors and head teachers in consultation with parents to ensure that what is taught reflects local cultural traditions, and draws on the professionalism of teachers and others who work with children. In the evidently very rare cases in which parents feel that the approach to teaching about sex and relationships is unsuitable for their child, they can withhold their child. There are sufficient protections in place.
      The case for repeal of section 28 is clear. It serves no useful purpose, it is a relic of a less enlightened age, it is offensive and it should go. There is no need for further delay. I hope that the House will overwhelmingly reject these inappropriate amendments and approve clause 119, which repeals section 28.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: There have been some strong and impassioned speeches expressing sincerely held views. It is clear that the House will be asked whether to retain section 2A. If it votes to retain the Bill as it emerged from Committee, without section 2A, it is clear that some safeguards are needed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have made it clear that material emanates from health
      86
      authorities, circulates and can be accessed by children of an inappropriate age. One of the key points in the guidance is that material should be suitable for children of a particular age. We are talking about the protection of children. Children's welfare and their moral upbringing should be paramount.
      Mr. Bercow: May I say politely to my hon. Friend that he offered not a scintilla of evidence that the material to which he objects is being used by teachers in schools? Does he accept that the danger of the ballot proposal is that it goes way beyond the right to withdraw one's own child from sex education, and creates a new right at which most people would baulk—that one should be able to vote to deny other people's children the sex education they deserve?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry that my hon. Friend made that intervention. He of all people should respect the pluralism represented by the ballot box. If a majority of parents in a ballot express the view that the materials are unsuitable, that is democracy working and the material should be taken away and rewritten. If they do so again, it is wholly right that the Secretary of State, who writes the guidance that my hon. Friend admires so much, and about which there have been no complaints in the past six months, should replace that guidance and those national materials.
      If section 2A is to be abolished, the safeguards in place are not strong enough. The Minister did not make out a strong enough case regarding protection in youth clubs. He says that they are included in the guidance already laid out in connection with the Education Act 1996, but section 403 of that Act refers specifically to maintained schools, not to other bodies funded by local authorities, so they are not covered. Attendance at them might be voluntary, but they are not covered. If youth clubs started to use the type of materials to which I referred, they would not be outside the law. There is a lacuna, and the right hon. Gentleman must address it.
      The Minister should also examine the health guidance. He arrogantly refused to look at the letter that I gave him. If he does so—I will write to him enclosing a copy of that letter—he will see that he must provide clarification. I am sure that my colleagues in another place will take up the matter. There is a muddle. Section 403(1C) says:
      "Guidance under subsection (1A) must include guidance about any material which may be produced by NHS bodies for use for the purposes of sex education in schools."
      The law is unclear.
      Finally, the Minister did not deal properly with abolishing section 104 of the Local Government Act 2000, which relates to bullying. If there is no safeguard in that respect, we will be in great difficulty.
      My hon. Friends will make up their own minds—there will be a free vote—but there are still problems to be dealt with and more safeguards that must be established. If those safeguards are not put in place, I have no doubt that my noble Friends in another place will send the matter back to this House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 356.

      Division No. 108]

      [7:29 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Leigh, Edward

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Baldry, Tony

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Barker, Gregory

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Lidington, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Loughton, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Boswell, Tim

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Maclean, rh David

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Malins,Humfrey

      Brady, Graham

      Mates, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Mercer, Patrick

      Burns, Simon

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Burnside, David

      Burt, Alistair

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Cameron, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Cash, William

      Ottaway, Richard

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Paice, James

      Pickles, Eric

      Chope, Christopher

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Clappison, James

      Randall, John

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Redwood, rh John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Robathan, Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Crausby, David

      Ruffley, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Selous, Andrew

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Shepherd, Richard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Simmonds, Mark

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Fallon, Michael

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Spring, Richard

      Flight Howard

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Flook, Adrian

      Steen, Anthony

      Forth, rh Eric

      Streeter, Gary

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Francois, Mark

      Syms, Robert

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Goodman, Paul

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Tredinnick, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Greenway, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Waterson, Nigel

      Hague, rh William

      Watkinson, Angela

      Hammond, Philip

      Whittingdale, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Heald, Oliver

      Wiggin, Bill

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Wilkinson, John

      Hedry, Charles

      Willetts, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Wilshire, David

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Howard, rh Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Young, rh Sir George

      Jack, rh Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Hugh Robertson

      88

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Allan, Richard

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Allen, Graham

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Curry, rh David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Baird, Vera

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Baker, Norman

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Banks, Tony

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Barnes, Harry

      Davidson, Ian

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Beard, Nigel

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dawson, Hilton

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Dismore, Andrew

      Benn, Hilary

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bennett, Andrew

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bercow, John

      Doran, Frank

      Berry, Roger

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Best, Harold

      Doughty, Sue

      Betts, Clive

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blunkett, rh David

      Edwards, Huw

      Borrow, David

      Efford, Clive

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Etherington, Bill

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Follett, Barbara

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Bryant, Chris

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Burden, Richard

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Burgon, Colin

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Burnham, Andy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burstow, Paul

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Gidley, Sandra

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Gilroy, Linda

      Cairns, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Grogan, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hain, rh Peter

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Casale, Roger

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caton, Martin

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Challen, Colin

      Hanson, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Chaytor, David

      Chidgey, David

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clapham, Michael

      Harvey, Nick

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Heppell, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hermon, Lady

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Cohen, Harry

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Holmes, Paul

      Corston, Jean

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Cotter, Brian

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cruddas, Jon

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      89

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Merron, Gillian

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hutton, rh John

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Miliband, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Miller, Andrew

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Mole, Chris

      Moore, Michael

      Jackson. Helen (Hillsborough)

      Moran, Margaret

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jamieson, David

      Mountford, Kali

      Jenkins, Brian

      Mudie, George

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Norman, Archie

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & inverness)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Öpik, Lembit

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Organ, Diana

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Owen, Albert

      Kidney, David

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Perham, Linda

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Picking, Anne

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Plaskitt, James

      Knight Jim (S Dorset)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Pound, Stephen

      Lamb, Norman

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lammy, David

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Prescott, rh John

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Lepper, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Purchase, Ken

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Purnell, James

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Linton, Martin

      Rammell, Bill

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Love, Andrew

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Rendel, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McCabe, Stephen

      McCafferty, Chris

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      McDonnell, John

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      MacDougall, John

      Rooney, Terry

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ruane, Chris

      McKechin, Ann

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      McNulty, Tony

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McWalter, Tony

      Salter, Martin

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sawford, Phil

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Sedgemore, Brian

      90

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Timms, Stephen

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sheridan, Jim

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Singh, Marsha

      Trickett, Jon

      Skinner, Dennis

      Truswell, Paul

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

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

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Soley, Clive

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Southworth, Helen

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Spellar, rh John

      Watts, David

      Squire, Rachel

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      White, Brian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Willis, Phil

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Wills, Michael

      Stringer, Graham

      Winnick, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Woolas, Phil

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Thurso, John

      Derek Twigg

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after half-past Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to order [25 February], then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 70, line 41, leave out Clause 119.—[Mr. Leigh.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 368.

      Division No. 109]

      [7:43 pm

      AYES

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Baldry, Tony

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Fallon, Michael

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Flight, Howard

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Flook, Adrian

      Brady, Graham

      Forth, rh Eric

      Brazier, Julian

      Francois, Mark

      Burnside, David

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Burt, Alistair

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Cash, William

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Hague, rh William

      Chope, Christopher

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Heald, Oliver

      Crausby, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Howard, rh Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      91

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Leigh, Edward

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Spelman. Mrs Caroline

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Lidington, David

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Maclean, rh David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Turner, Andrew (lsle of Wight)

      Malins. Humfrey

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Watkinson, Angela

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Whittingdale, John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wilkinson, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Wilshire, David

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Randall, John

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Redwood, rh John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Andrew Selous and

      Mr. Bill Wiggin

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Casale, Roger

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Caton, Martin

      Allan, Richard

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Allen, Graham

      Challen, Colin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Chidgey, David

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clapham, Michael

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Baird, Vera

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Baker, Norman

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Banks, Tony

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Barnes, Harry

      Coaker, Vernon

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Coleman, Iain

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Benn, Hilary

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bennett, Andrew

      Corston, Jean

      Bercow, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Berry, Roger

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Best, Harold

      Cruddas, Jon

      Betts, Clive

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Blunkett, rh David

      Borrow, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Curry, rh David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Davidson, Ian

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Davis, rh Terry (B ham Hodge H)

      Brown Russell (Dumfries)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bryant, Chris

      Dismore, Andrew

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Burden, Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Burgon, Colin

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Burnham, Andy

      Doughty, Sue

      Burstow, Paul

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Cairns, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Efford, Clive

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Etherington, Bill

      92

      Evans, Nigel

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Flint, Caroline

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Follett, Barbara

      Kidney, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Lamb, Norman

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lammy, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Godsiff, Roger

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Goggins, Paul

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Goodman, Paul

      Lepper, David

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Grogan, John

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Linton, Martin

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Hanson, David

      Love, Andrew

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Harvey, Nick

      McCabe, Stephen

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McCafferty, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Healey, John

      McDonnell, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      MacDougall, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hendry, Charles

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hermon, Lady

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      McKechin, Ann

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hodge, Margaret

      McNulty, Tony

      Holmes, Paul

      McWalter, Tony

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Martlew, Eric

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Merron, Gillian

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hutton, rh John

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Miliband, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Miller, Andrew

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mole, Chris

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Moore, Michael

      Jamieson, David

      Moran, Margaret

      Jenkins, Brian

      Morley, Elliot

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Mudie, George

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      93

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Soley, Clive

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Southworth, Helen

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Spellar, rh John

      Norman, Archie

      Spring, Richard

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Squire, Rachel

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      O'Hara, Edward

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stevenson, George

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Organ, Diana

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Owen, Albert

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Stringer, Graham

      Perham, Linda

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Picking, Anne

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pickthall, Colin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Syms, Robert

      Plaskitt, James

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Pound, Stephen

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Taylor, Mathew (Truro)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Prescott, rh John

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thurso, John

      Purchase, Ken

      Timms, Stephen

      Purnell, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Rammell, Bill

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Touhing, Don (Islwyn)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Trickett, Jon

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Truswell, Paul

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rooney, Terry

      Ward, Claire

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Ruane, Chris

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Watts, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      White, Brian

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Salter, Martin

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Sawford, Phil

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Willis, Phil

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wills, Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheridan, Jim

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Singh, Marsha

      Woolas, Phil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Tellers for the Noes:

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

      Derek Twigg and

      Mr. John Heppell

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Philip Hammond:: I beg to move amendment No.2, in page 70, line 32 leave out Clause 118.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No.26, in page 110 [Schedule 7], leave out lines 16 to 18.
      Amendment No.27, in page 72, line 22 [Clause 125], leave out '118'.
      Amendment No.28, in page 72 [Clause 125], leave out lines 25 to 28.
      Amendment No.29, in page 74, line 31 [Clause 126], leave out '113 and 118(a)' and insert 'and 113'.
      Amendment No.30, in page 74, line 33 [Clause 126], leave out from 'the' to 'section' in line 36 and insert
      'entry in Schedule 7 relating to'.
      Mr. Hammond: The context in which the House is considering these changes to the Fire Services Act 1947 is well known: the rumbling dispute between the Fire Brigades Union and the fire service employers that flared into action in the last quarter of last year and which, sadly, looks as though it might re-ignite in the near future, if press speculation is to be believed. From that dispute stemmed the Government's commissioning of the Bain report on the modernisation of the fire service, and I shall return in a moment to the question of what modernisation means.
      The Government's view is clearly that subsections 3 to 8 of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947—the parts of the Act that provide for the Secretary of State to give his approval to certain aspects of establishment schemes—should cease to have effect. Clause 118 of the Bill will effectively remove a large chunk of section 19 of the 1947 Act and place at least the notional power to change deployments of fire appliances and fire fighters, to close fire stations and open new ones, and to alter manning levels, into the hands of local fire authorities. I should like to make it clear at the outset that Conservative Members have absolutely no wish to stand in the way of the genuine modernisation of the fire service. There is consensus among fire service employers that there is a need to remove section 19, for many of the reasons that the Minister will no doubt outline in a few moments.
      The reason for tabling amendment No. 2 is a rather technical one, but it will be clear to anyone who has read the Standing Committee proceedings. When the Government introduced what is now clause 118, which will scrap section 19 of the Fire Services Act, the Minister made it clear that an understanding of the Government's intentions would depend critically on the draft guidance that would be issued to fire authorities on how they should go about developing their integrated risk management plans, and how they should consult the local community and stakeholders on those draft plans.
      As the Minister was unable to let the Committee see a draft at that stage, the Committee was unable to do its duty of scrutinising the Government's intent—the words in the Bill are not terribly informative.
      8 pm
      The Minister gave a commitment in Committee to do his best to ensure that he could place the draft guidance at the disposal of the House before we considered the clause on Report. My hon. Friends and I tabled

      95
      amendment No. 2 simply to allow the House to debate the issue, consider the draft guidance and discuss the issues arising from a review of it. I shall raise some specific issues in a moment, but I ask the Minister—no doubt he intends to do this anyway, but we should avoid any doubt—to make clear to the House what discussions have taken place between the Government, the employers and the FBU on the draft guidance, which he placed in the Library of the House last Wednesday and which will form the basis of the development of integrated risk management plans.
      Amendment No. 2 has attracted the signatures of what I can describe only as a wide cross-section of opinion in the House, ranging from my hon. Friends and I to Labour Members who are not normally noted for their inclination to agree with Conservative Front Benchers on many issues. I have made it clear that, through tabling the amendment, we intend to allow proper consideration of the Government's guidance. [Interruption.] As the Minister has helpfully reminded me, some of those Labour Members are not always known for their willingness to agree with the sentiments expressed from the Government Front Bench, either.
      Our purpose is clear—to allow proper consideration and debate in the light of the draft guidance—but other Members, in adding their names to the amendment, may have other intentions. They will no doubt make them clear in due course. I am extremely grateful to Labour Members for tabling all the consequential amendments, which I would otherwise have had to work out and table for myself. I do not know whether they are responsible for the amendments or whether they had outside assistance, but what they have done is extremely welcome.
      The revocation of section 19 of the 1947 Act could have been a tidying-up exercise in the context of an agreed settlement of the wider dispute, which has been rumbling on for the best part of a year, but, after seeing the reaction to the offer tabled by the employers last week—it looks set to be rejected by the FBU—it seems that the dispute is not about to end and there is a clear possibility of further strikes in the near future, including during military action, which may occur in or around Iraq.
      If I may, I shall put two specific questions to the Minister, and I hope that he is prepared to deal with those wider issues. First, in the circumstances that the country finds itself in, are the Government now prepared to make a commitment to use the powers available to them either under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, although they have disputed that that power is available to Ministers, or through the medium of the declaration of a state of emergency to ensure that no fire strike, which would place additional burdens on our military, naval and air forces, is allowed to take place while military action is under way in the Persian gulf?
      Conservative Members believe that it is deplorable that any trade union would even consider, or certainly threaten, such irresponsible action at a time like this, when military forces would have to provide cover to protect the civilian population in the event of a strike and against the threat of any terrorist or enemy action
      96
      at home during any military action abroad. I urge the Minister to make an unequivocal statement of the Government's intentions.
      Secondly, will the Minister deal with press reports, which Members on both sides of the House have read, of refusals by the FBU in some areas to allow training on and commissioning of decontamination units, which have been bought at considerable public expense to protect the public in the event of a chemical or biological attack on this country? Can he confirm whether those press reports are true and that the FBU has prevented work on those things from going ahead in some areas? What action will he take to ensure that such risks to preparedness for a terrorist attack are eliminated?
      In the absence of a settlement of the dispute, the revocation of section 19 becomes one more step in the conduct of that dispute. It was about pay—the FBU originally claimed a 40 per cent. increase—but it became linked to the Government's modernisation agenda, although there is a clear difference of opinion about what modernisation really means. What is clear is that the Government see local risk-based redeployment of resources as the key to modernisation of the fire service. For that reason, they wish to remove the section so that the Secretary of State would no longer have a role in sanctioning such locally determined reallocations of resources.
      However, one of the principal problems throughout that long-running dispute—the proposal to scrap section 19 simply underlines it—has been local fire authorities' notional responsibility for running the fire service and dealing with the fire service employees—the fire workers, as we have come to call them in the House. The reality is that effective control is exercised by central Government through their control of the purse strings. We saw that clearly in the early hours of Friday 22 November, when the Government pulled the plug on a settlement that the fire service employers had offered to the FBU and which the FBU was apparently minded to accept.
      Immediately after that, we heard the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister going on the record to declare that any settlement above the 4 per cent. inflation-linked settlement that had already been offered had to be self-financing through modernisation of the fire service. I urge Members to remember those words of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—"self-financing through modernisation".
      The fire service employers are apparently responsible for negotiating a settlement of the dispute. Now, with the integrated risk management plans, local fire authorities are, apparently, supposed to make risk-based assessments as the basis for identifying the resources required to provide appropriate community safety and fire cover in their areas. That is what the Government guidance tells us, but the Prime Minister himself has already made it clear that the settlement of the fire service dispute must be financed through modernisation.
      Thus the Prime Minister has corrupted not only the word "modernisation", which is the word that has been most corrupted by new Labour over the past six years, but the process of risk assessment, which the Government guidance document is all about, by preordaining the outcome. If a higher-than-inflation

      97
      settlement of the firefighters' pay claim is agreed, the integrated risk management plans, which are supposed to be risk based rather than resource driven, must conclude that fewer resources are required.
      What would a cynic—not that there are any in this place, M r. Deputy Speaker—make of clause 118 and the proposal to abolish section 19? A cynic would fear that local politicians are to be invited to take responsibility from the Secretary of State for the politically unpopular cuts in services that are possibly to be dictated by a central Government finance settlement based on the Prime Minister's and the Deputy Prime Minister's declaration of the need for any settlement to be self-financing through modernisation.
      Dr. Nick Palmer:I am trying hard to follow the hon. Gentleman, but with some difficulty. Is he opposed to a 16 per cent. settlement being mainly self-financed? Is he opposed to the risk-based assessment producing savings? Or is he trying to blame the Government either way?
      Mr. Hammond: I would certainly not be opposed to a risk-based assessment producing savings if that is what a risk-based assessment produced. Before implementing the risk-based assessment programme, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister said that the settlement must be self-financing through modernisation. I suggest that they are defining modernisation as a reduction in real resources available to the fire service. In a moment, I shall invite the Minister to disabuse the hypothetical cynic of the view that he may take of this whole process.
      The fear is that politically unpopular cuts in service that are dictated from the centre will have to be implemented by local politicians. If that hypothetical cynic were to read the draft guidance on how the locally produced integrated risk management plans are to be developed, his fears would not be allayed. We are told in the guidance that the Government will helpfully provide guidance notes that fire authorities
      "will wish to take into account in the development of integrated risk management plans."
      Moreover, the Government will make available Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate to advise fire authorities, so as to ensure the
      "implementation of a consistent approach."
      Indeed, paragraph 2.7 says that Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate
      "on behalf of Government, should also be consulted on the draft integrated risk management plan."
      The draft guidance gives what can only be described as some not very subtle steers on this locally based programme of risk assessment. Paragraph 3.5.6 says:
      "The policies needed to deliver some improvements could relate to the terms and conditions on which staff are employed as well as to operational matters. How those could be brought into effect is outside the ambit of this guidance. Even if it is currently unclear how or when these could be effected, it is still important to identify them where they are an essential component of delivering improvements to the community."
      Paragraph 3.5.8 says:
      "Before deciding on the emergency response standards to set, you"—
      the fire authorities—
      98
      "will first need to consider whether there are any categories of calls, or circumstances, in which an attendance would be deemed to be inappropriate."
      In paragraph 3.6.1, fire authorities are told that they will wish to
      "consider the appliances and crews you will need to deliver your goals, policies and standards. The properties currently used to house them, i.e. the fire stations, do not in themselves contribute to the emergency response provision … Fire authorities may wish to consider using other opportunities to meet these needs, particularly in view of the greater flexibility likely to be adopted in some areas".
      It goes on to say rather controversially:
      "The provision of fire stations in every locality to accommodate appliances that may only be in the area for a few hours would clearly be wasteful."
      My cynic would see that as an example of prejudging the review that the guidance is supposed to set up. Paragraph 3.6.2 tells local fire authorities:
      "You may also wish to consider whether some special services might be provided on a re-chargeable basis."
      All that may be true, and fire authorities may indeed wish to consider these matters, but setting them out in the guidance suggests to some people that the Government have prejudged the likely outcome of these reviews.
      In paragraph 3.6.2, the document says categorically that fire authorities should
      "only make changes where it is clear that the overall net effect will be to improve community safety."
      That is flatly contradicted in paragraph 3.2 of the second draft guidance notes, which talks about the public being most interested in those aspects that impinge directly on the service provided to them. It says:
      "This will include those instances when proposed changes will improve the service provided as well as when the reverse occurs, e.g. when resources are redeployed from one location to another".
      That clearly presumes that not all the changes will be in accordance with the exhortation in paragraph 3.6.2 that authorities should make changes only when it is clear that the overall net effect will be to improve community safety.
      The reality for fire authorities, as they embark on this process, is, first, that central Government controls the funding; secondly, that central Government have shown themselves determined to set the parameters for any settlement to this dispute; thirdly, that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have both said that any settlement has to be self-financing; and fourthly, that the understandable conclusion of many observers is that there is a presumption that these integrated risk management plans must call for fewer resources. It would be understandable if an observer were concerned about the transfer to local fire authorities of the power to implement this modernisation, which is likely to be politically painful and controversial if the overall real resources deployed are to be cut.
      The facts are these. A 16 per cent. pay increase by July 2004 was recently offered, presumably with the approval of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I know that officials from the ODPM monitor the negotiations closely. That will not be paid for by staff reductions over that period, especially given the pledge of no redundancies. All the Government have offered the fire

      99
      service employers is a £30 million transitional funding loan that will be clawed back out of future funding allocations, thus requiring an even greater ultimate reduction in the level of real resource.
      The Government have been silent on allocation issues. The cost of a settlement of this dispute will have an impact on all fire brigades, but the scope for savings through the modernisation programme and the implementation of risk-based management plans will be largely concentrated in the metropolitan and urban area brigades.
      I have five simple questions to put to the Minister in order to assess the genuineness of this process. Are the Government budgeting for the service to cost more or less in total after the introduction of the integrated risk management plans? Will the resource requirements of any properly developed integrated risk management plan be reflected in the formula grant for the local authority that implements it? I hope that this is not the case, but if the Government's proposal merely replaces a national dispute over modernisation and pay with local disputes over specific proposals for resource redeployment, will the Government underwrite the cost of military fire cover for authorities involved in individual disputes? During the national dispute, the Government have met that cost. Indubitably, none of the fire authorities could have afforded to fund the military cover that has been provided if they had been forced to meet that out of their own budgets. It is difficult to see how the Minister expects fire service employers to be able to negotiate appropriately at a local level if the Government will not back them with Government-supported military cover if a dispute unfortunately occurs.
      Will there be a robust regime for measuring the performance of brigades under integrated risk management plans, and how will it work, given that there will no longer be standard performance indicators and therefore no immediate comparability between brigades? If so, will the Government commit themselves to achieving some testing targets for reduction in fire deaths? If they really believe that these risk management plans will deliver greater community safety, can they reassure the public by setting testing targets to show that they have genuine faith in the process on which they have embarked? Otherwise, the watching public may prove to be as cynical as my hypothetical observer.
      Conservative Members will support modernisation and the integrated risk management plans if they are genuinely about improvements to the service, but when the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister said that the settlement had to be self-financing through modernisation, they undermined the case for genuine modernisation. Eighty-five per cent. of the cost of the fire service consists of wages and salaries. That gives rise to a genuine fear that more pay equals fewer jobs and fewer appliances in fire stations. The fear is that the Government have prejudged the review that they are setting in progress. There are real concerns that integrated risk management programmes will not be risk based, but will be driven by cuts in the real resources available as higher pay is financed by lower manpower and fewer appliances. In those circumstances, the local consultation to which the Minister has committed the
      100
      Government would be a charade. We are well disposed to genuine modernisation, but the Minister must seek to dispel our concerns.
      John McDonnell: I know that several hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall try to be brief.
      First, I disabuse any hon. Member of the idea that there has suddenly been an alliance of the socialist Campaign group with elements on the other side of the Chamber. We tabled the amendment unwittingly, not knowing that the other amendment had been tabled.
      For the benefit of those who did not have the enjoyment of serving on the Committee, I want to go through the genesis of the amendment and the background to how it came about. When the Fire Services Act 1947 was introduced, section 19 was identified as a mechanism whereby the Government would be able to ensure that minimum standards of fire cover were maintained by fire authorities, and subsequent guidance ensured that there would be full consultation with local communities prior to any changes in provision. That meant that section 19 ensured that the Secretary of State would need to be consulted on any significant changes and to approve them. However, that applied only in cases where there would be a reduction in cover; no approval would be required if a fire authority wished to increase cover. Approval was required for station closures and changes in practices whereby full-timers, part-timers or pumping appliances would be removed from individual fire stations. The system worked in such a way that no trivial matters were referred to the Secretary of State. It was not about replacing fire stations on existing sites, but about significant changes in local fire cover practices. The same applied in relation to staffing matters—the system was concerned with reductions in firefighter posts, which is of concern to local communities. Time scales were set—usually six weeks—within which the Secretary of State would be required to come back with a decision, or at least an explanation of why the decision had not been made in that time.
      Pertinent to the whole process—I quote from the circular that the Government issued in 1992—was that potential changes should be sufficiently widely publicised in sufficient detail with adequate time to ensure that any interested parties would be able to make representations, and that such representations should be considered by the fire authority. What then happened, of course, was that the Secretary of State became the longstop in terms of any right of appeal for a local community. MPs, local authorities, fire authorities and members of the local community recognised that the Secretary of State could intervene if the local fire authority was trampling over their wishes.
      Changes in the professional environment then followed. In May 2000, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council agreed to set up a task group to look at section 19 procedures and to develop a strategy for dealing with section 19 applications resulting from any changes in fire cover standards as the service—yes, even at that point—developed its discussions about modernisation. The first meeting of that group was convened by the Home Office on 19 December 2000. It agreed its terms of reference, and there were four meetings. At its final meeting on 20 December 2001, the

      101
      fire policy unit said that it would produce a report on whether the circular should be amended or replaced and on how, if the risk-based standards were introduced, section 19 procedures would then be either sustainable or changed.
      Dr. Palmer: Can my hon. Friend tell me on how many occasions since 1991 the Home Secretary has overturned a proposal?
      John McDonnell: It has been very rare for applications even to reach the Secretary of State, because fire authorities operated in the knowledge that they would ultimately have to be accountable to the Secretary of State. That is the effectiveness of an appeal mechanism.
      The task group was established specifically to review section 19 and the fire policy unit was to produce the report, yet no report was produced, although the chairmanship and the secretariat was in the hands of the Government. The fire cover review produced by the task group concluded that section 19 was not a barrier to the introduction of risk-based emergency cover. Included in that task group were representatives from Government, Her Majesty's inspector of fire services, the employers' organisations, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and, of course, the Fire Brigades Union.
      Then, Bain came along. The Government's proposal to amend the legislation comes directly from Bain. It drives to the heart of the contradiction of the Bain inquiry and report, because Bain is either a considered assessment and proposed programme of reform of the organisation and management of the fire service or it is part of the negotiating process to settle a pay dispute—it cannot be both. The tragedy of Bain is that it is being used for both purposes, ultimately not particularly effectively. Bain made several recommendations and proposals concerning the planning and future provision of fire cover. It recommended the establishment of new institutions to consider risk management, to advise Secretaries of State, and to bring forward a level of expertise in that advice through the fire service college and a new role for the inspectorate. Bain said that the move to allocate resources according to risk would not require legislation. Then, Bain moved beyond being a body that recommended improvements in fire cover and professional management into the negotiating process, saying that if full efficiency gains are to be unlocked by the use of new models of fire cover, the Government must repeal section 19 of the 1947 Act.
      That is the crux of tonight's debate. Bain's recommendation was not about the introduction of risk management to improve the overall service; it stemmed from the Government's demand from Government for resource-driven reform. That meant that Bain had to come up with some process by which those resources, through supposed modernisation savings, were identified rapidly. The Bain report had to deliver the removal of what the Secretary of State would describe as "encumbrances" to achieving cuts. It is appalling that that recommendation has been brought forward before all the other Bain recommendations. We were promised—and Bain recommended it—that a White Paper giving a new legislative base for the fire service would be published by Easter. Most of us have been
      102
      arguing for that for a long time. The FBU was involved in discussions with Government on a draft White Paper. It was not published but Ministers commended the fire service for its exemplary modernising practices over the years.
      8.30 pm
      We now have one section of Bain being brought forward before a comprehensive analysis of what new fire safety legislation should look like. Why? Because Bain has to find £140 million of cuts in the pay bill. That is what this is all about. For opportunistic reasons, we are dragging a proper assessment of the reform of the fire service into the mud of a pay negotiation. If we are to have reform of the fire service, let us have a proper and appropriate process. Let us establish bodies to consider the professional practices that we want. Let us consider changes proposed in a White Paper or new legislation; hut, Oh Government, do not come here and seek to bounce through the sorts of changes in this Bill. They will result in cuts in fire cover, in firefighters' posts and, indeed, in the numbers of fire stations.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman knows that my hon. Friends and I disagree with much of what he is saying, but there is one point of agreement. Is it not ironic that the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that he would be willing to use powers to impose a settlement from Whitehall, but that tonight he is trying to remove the Secretary of State's powers in other areas?
      John McDonnell: It is ironic that, at the same time as the Minister was waxing lyrical about reform that would place devolved power in the hands of the local fire authorities, as I note he did in one of the meetings of the Committee, the Secretary of State was interfering in the dispute to prevent a settlement—which but for his intervention would have been arrived at last November.
      David Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in effect, we are talking about national negotiations and conditions? Local authorities have no choice but to consider the 15 per cent. that they are left with, which can only mean various cuts in, for example, fire boards.
      John McDonnell: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that the changes to the Fire Services Act 1947 that the Government have proposed will result in local fire authorities seeking to introduce practices in the fire services that will demand local negotiation. Thus it will be sought to break the power of a union that has represented its members well and has worked effectively with the Government, up until this dispute, to promote reform of the fire service that would deliver increased professionalism and effectiveness.
      Our anxiety as MPs was to ensure that Government listened to the wishes of our local communities. We were told in Committee that guidance would be produced to ensure that local consultation would continue. That guidance was placed in the House of Commons Library three working days ago. I believe that most people only picked it up today. The guidance has no teeth. It says what it expects of fire authorities, but nothing more. There is no legal requirement for consultation. We are told that, if a local fire authority acts unreasonably, the

      103
      local community can seek judicial review. Judicial review costs, on average, £15,000 just to get cases into court—and that is not to mention the possible subsequent costs. Judicial review is no remedy for the local working—class community that is about to lose its fire station and needs a voice or a protector against a fire authority, under the cosh because of Government cuts, that wishes to close services.
      The Government should give us time to consider the guidance. They should pull back from their position and allow this amendment to go through. They should give us time to consult properly on the guidance, as they promised. We want national uniformity and consistency of standards. However—and we say this clearly to the Government—individual MPs in individual communities will not stand by and allow their local fire stations to be closed. They expect Government to work with them. They expect the Secretary of State to protect communities. I find it bizarre that the Secretary of State wants to give up his role in vetoing outrageous local policies for the fire services, but that central Government, as we heard last week when debating local government finance, are trying to retain their power to control the level of rates that local authorities can set.
      Tonight we are asking Government to hear the message that local communities should retain a voice. We need to have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. We have such a right in education, when schools are threatened with closure; we have it in health when hospitals are threatened with closure; but we do not have it in the police or ambulance services. There were horrendous problems, especially in the ambulance service, in my constituency and London overall. We needed Government intervention to protect local communities, but they did not have the powers. The provision gives rise to the suspicion that it clears a path for the Government to implement a massive cuts package as a result of the wage negotiations. I will not be a party to that and will not allow them to introduce proposals that aid and abet something that is driving down the working conditions and the wages of firefighters.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Liberal Democrats have many concerns about the way in which the Government have dealt with the fire dispute. We have often questioned them about their role—in particular how they will handle transitional funding. We have been concerned about the fact that Ministers have said different things and have sometimes not spoken with one voice. I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and hope that the Minister responds to him. In particular, I am interested to learn who would fund military cover if local disagreements lead to local industrial action by the FBU.
      We are concerned that the Government are, to an extent, prejudging the integrated risk management programmes by setting them in stone. If the analysis shows that more money is required to maintain or increase community safety in an area, they need to be clear that that money will be forthcoming. Equally, however, we are worried about the FBU's behaviour
      104
      throughout the dispute. It did not accept the latest offer on the table although it was reasonable, and I hope that it will not go ahead with strikes, especially at this time.
      I was concerned to read in the FBU's briefing note sent to Members of Parliament tonight that if we maintain clause 118
      "This will mean the withdrawal of the right of local communities, local councillors, and local MPs to have a say on the closure of local fire stations, the removal of fire-engines and cut-backs on the number of firefighters."
      If that were true, I would have voted against it in Committee and would vote against it tonight, but we have to make our decisions on the basis of truth and what information is available to us. I have read guidance notes 1 and 2 and it is clear that there will be full and open consultation. Let me set out what form that will take because, although we have not discussed it so far, it is germane to the debate. The consultation is vital. If there were no consultation—no due process—to consider a change in the configuration of local fire services, that would be a huge problem. It would mean that those of us who want to campaign against the closure of a fire station or the removal of a fire appliance in our constituency would have no mechanism to represent our communities if they were concerned about such proposals; but from my reading of the guidance notes that is not the case.
      Relevant sections of the guidance notes show that consultation is required. Guidance note 1 is sent to chief fire officers. Paragraph 2.4 states:
      "Consultation with the community you serve and your staff will be an essential element in the preparation of"
      the integrated risk management plan. In the guidance note on consultation itself, the Government go into detail on how that should be undertaken and they set out who should be consulted and on what. The guidance covers the draft integrated risk management programme, the annual action plans and changes to them, examples of proposals for changes, who should be consulted on them and the best way to consult. I refer hon. Members to the note because it sets out exactly what consultation there must be. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) implied that the consultation could take place if the fire authorities choose to do that, but in fact there is a statutory requirement for them to do so. I looked up section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999—the best value authority legislation. It requires best value authorities—fire authorities are defined as a best value authority in section 1 of that Act—to undertake consultation. The guidance note refers to that. There is clear protection for our communities and for us as Members of Parliament in the requirement that consultation must take place.
      Although I agreed with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, I thought that at times he quoted selectively from the guidance notes. Paragraph 3.6.2 of guidance note 2 provided me with some reassurance. The hon. Gentleman might suggest that I am naive to be reassured, but if we in this place cannot trust what is in a Government document, we had better give up, as we cannot have proper debate. Paragraph 3.6.2 makes it clear that in the event of any changes resulting in a reconfiguration of the fire service, there must be no reduction in community safety. It states:

      105
      "You should only make changes where it is clear that the overall net effect will be to improve community safety."
      That is a clear safeguard. If it had not been in place, I would have been on my feet tonight asking where it was.
      Mr. Hammond: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by selective quoting—I quoted exactly the piece that he has just read out to the House.
      Mr. Davey: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman then chose one or two other excerpts, which did not make his point fully. He should have quoted the full paragraph from which they were taken. He asked, rightly, how national standards would be measured in future. The guidance note refers to national performance measures. That reflects the 1999 Act, which allows the Minister to put forward performance measures—output measures, in the jargon—that fire authorities would have to meet. If they did not, they would be failing in their legal responsibilities. That clearly underpins the framework.
      Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davey: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman's Whip has just told me that I must shut up in a second, so I shall bring my remarks to an end.
      I have some questions to the Minister, to which I should like answers to reassure me that the framework that he is setting in place is sufficient. The guidance notes are fairly clear about what will happen in the first round of integrated risk management plans. However, clause 118 will get rid of the safeguard for all time, or until another Parliament seeks to restore it, so what about future integrated risk management plans? What is the process for future consultation on those? What consultation on national performance measures is envisaged by the Minister? The guidance note refers to a future guidance note, but we do not have that in front of us, and those national performance measures will be important.
      The guidance notes say little about the post-consultation period and what will happen with respect to decisions taken by the local fire authority, how it will held to account, and how those decisions will be published. If there is to be local accountability, as we agreed with the Minister that there should be, he needs to say more about the post-consultation period than the one paragraph in the current guidance notes. Can he confirm, as I asked him in Committee, that if a consultation process does not follow the guidance notes and the 1999 Act, the FBU and local communities could seek judicial review of that decision? That is an important safeguard. I know that judicial review costs a lot of money, but the FBU is more than capable of funding such a review. If its members were prepared to forgo a few dinners, they could afford it without difficulty.
      David Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davey: No, I will not give way. I am trying to bring my remarks to a close. I was concerned that the guidance did not include more requirements for greater collaboration—
      8.45 pm
      Ms Walley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many people wanted to speak in this debate, and we are fast approaching the time when wind-ups will take place. Will you look again at our arrangements so that, when we have pure discussions of this kind, Members who wish to get involved have opportunities to contribute?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady will understand that that is determined by the Programming Committee, and that the general question of allocation of time must be tackled through the usual channels.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Lady will know that I am taking less than half the time that was taken by the Conservative Front Bench.
      My final question to the Minister on the guidance notes is in relation to collaboration between local fire authorities and, for example, bodies that are involved in providing transport or bodies that are involved in community safety partnerships. A lot of the improvement in the fire service, in terms of community safety and prevention, will come through such collaboration. The guidance notes are very weak on that aspect, and they must be tightened up when they are finalised.
      In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats support the inclusion of clause 118 in the Bill, which gives a greater decentralist flavour to the way in which we will run local fire services in future. I hope that the Minister will give proper answers, both to my questions and to those of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), so that we can be assured that proper consultation measures will be in place.
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall do my best to answer the many questions that have been raised. If time gets the better of me, and I cannot deal with everything tonight, I shall write to all hon. Members who raised questions.
      Ms Walley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: I have just begun. I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but I should make a little progress.
      We have had a useful debate, as we did in Committee, about this important element in the overall package of reform for the fire service recommended by the independent review. Before I deal with the details of the repeal of part of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, I would like to put that in the context of the current dispute. Following discussions at ACAS, the local authority employers tabled last Thursday an offer that holds out the prospect of a 16 per cent. increase in average pay by July 2004 in exchange for modernisation of working practices. That is, by any measure, a generous offer, and goes to the very limit of what local authorities can afford. Indeed, it offers substantially more to firefighters than the 7.8 per cent. deal over two years accepted by other local authority employees last year.
      I sincerely hope that, despite the views being expressed by the Fire Brigades Union executive, the union's membership will recognise that this is a good

      107
      deal. They have nothing to gain by refusing the offer. Indeed, refusal would risk another unproductive period of conflict from which no one can gain, and which would inevitably impact adversely on the public. At this particularly sensitive time, I cannot believe that any reasonable person could want such an outcome.
      Some of those who oppose a settlement have suggested that the necessary reforms to existing working practices, which make possible a pay increase significantly ahead of what would otherwise be available, involve unacceptable changes—
      John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Government wish to make a statement on the Fire Brigades Union dispute on the pay issue, may I suggest that they bring forward a statement at the appropriate time, rather than abusing the process of this Bill procedure?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As far as I can rule on this matter, the debate appears to be in order. I am sure that the Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
      Mr. Raynsford: Indeed, I did, and I also heard the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who specifically asked me to respond on this issue. I am only surprised that my hon. Friend does not want to hear these important points.
      It is simply not the case that the reforms of working practices would involve unacceptable changes to firefighters' terms and conditions. The proposed changes allow a more flexible approach that will enable fire authorities to respond more effectively to today's risks and challenges. That will not mean tearing up all the terms and conditions enjoyed by most firefighters. Firefighters would continue to work, as they do now, an average 42-hour week. The majority could continue on the same shift system that applies now. Some would have the option of changing working patterns: for example, to work days only, as some wish to do. Some would be able to work overtime if they wanted. Nor will local fire chiefs be free to impose draconian changes on firefighters without regard to national considerations, as some who are hostile to a settlement suggest.
      As I will make clear in a moment, we will issue guidance on how local fire authorities can best approach the development of integrated risk management plans. Her Majesty's fire services inspectorate will take a close interest, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will work closely with the Local Government Association to ensure fair implementation of the new arrangements.
      Those are commonsense reforms in line with what is happening in almost every other sector of our economy, and they would ensure a better service to the public, as well as enabling firefighters to receive a substantial pay increase. I hope that the deal will be accepted and that the FBU will engage constructively in the reform and modernisation process, as it is both necessary and inevitable.
      I turn now to specific subject of the debate. The purpose of clause 118 is to remove the requirement in section 19(4) of the Fire Services Act 1947 for fire
      108
      authorities to seek the Secretary of State's approval before making any reduction, no matter how minor, in the number of firefighting posts, or before closing fire stations or withdrawing fire appliances.
      David Hamilton: The Minister refers to the 7.5 per cent. offer that has been made, but does he agree that 16 per cent is far short of the 22 per cent. increase that was given to teachers in Scotland, along with a modernisation deal?
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend will know that Scottish matters are devolved—I cannot speak for Scotland and do not intend to—but by contrast with the offer made to local authority employees in England, the offer made by the employers to the FBU last week is generous.
      The proposed repeal is a key element in the replacement of the existing, outdated and over-centralised framework for fire cover. That framework is out of keeping with the aim of a modern fire service, where resources are flexibly deployed to meet locally identified risks to life and property. Repealing section 19 and the early introduction of a new risk-based approach to fire cover, recommended by Bain, offer a real prospect of reducing the incidence of fire, and deaths and injuries from fire.
      Dr. Palmer: Although I do not agree with the savage attack on the FBU made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I share the concern that, in removing the Home Secretary's theoretical power, we might weaken the power of local councillors and Members of Parliament to react to proposals. Can the Minister reassure us on that point?
      Mr. Raynsford: I will cover precisely that point in a moment if my hon. Friend will bear with me.
      Decisions should be taken by democratically accountable fire authorities, acting on the professional advice of chief fire officers and after taking account of the local community's views. The Government do not believe that the Secretary of State should take those decisions in a modern fire service. I heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but the most recent case that came to us involved a proposal to transfer a station from one location in the area to another; there was no change in the number of appliances or in crewing. That disproves his claim that section 19 was not about unnecessary or trivial matters being referred to the Secretary of State.
      Ms Walley: It is important that the Government do not go ahead with something that is premature, that does not provide the flexibility that will be needed and that could pre-empt achieving a joint partnership agreement to resolve the firefighters dispute. Surely a decision on all that should be taken at one time; it should not pre-empt an agreement.
      Mr. Raynsford: The Bain review explored all those issues in considerable detail and made a series of recommendations that has been widely welcomed by almost every fire interest in the country, apart from the FBU. As we are faced with a clear recommendation

      109
      from the Bain inquiry, it would be extremely perverse to ignore it and not to proceed rapidly to repeal section 19. That is why we are acting now.
      In the fire service of the future, a flexible risk-based approach to fire cover will be achieved through the implementation of locally determined integrated risk management plans, within the framework of national guidance. I explained in Committee that Her Majesty's fire services inspectorate was preparing guidance on the implementation of such plans, including arrangements for local consultation. I gave an undertaking that, barring unforeseen circumstances, hon. Members would have access to that draft guidance before considering the Bill on Report, and I am pleased to have been able to satisfy that commitment.
      The fire service is widely respected for its performance in meeting the attendance times set out in the national standards for fire cover, but that will not necessarily deliver the reduction in deaths and injuries that should be our priority. Indeed, as recently published statistics show, the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by fire sadly increased in the last 12 months reported—the 12 months ending in March last year. To reverse that trend, we need to move beyond the 1947 standards. Those standards have their origin in the Riverdale committee of 1936 and were recommended to fire authorities more than 50 years ago. They are based on the characteristics of property and buildings in an area, not on the risk of death and injury from fire.
      The current standards do not, as Bain noted, reflect the changes in our cities since 1947: the falling population in town centres, the growth of suburbs and the movement of people to city centres in daytime and returning to the suburbs at night. They do not reflect the changing nature and location of industry or more effective fire safety measures. For example, smoke alarms and sprinklers are now found in many buildings. For much of the time, the current standards determine that fire service resources are targeted on protecting unoccupied buildings and not on ensuring the most effective response to the needs of people who might be at risk.
      The current standards are also based on inputs. The Bain review recommended rightly that we need, as a matter of urgency, to move away from this inflexible and formulaic approach to one that puts the emphasis on outputs and outcomes in terms of lives saved and injuries prevented, that is responsive to locally identified risks and needs, that is concerned with a wide range of threats to community safety and that accelerates the move from intervention to prevention.
      The repeal will not alter a fire authority's statutory responsibility to provide an efficient service. That will remain by virtue of section 1 of the 1947 Act. Nor will it mean that fire authorities will no longer consult about the deployment of resources. One of the more regrettable features of the propaganda against our proposals has been the suggestion—repeated by the FBU in its brief to Members that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) quoted—that the repeal of part of section 19 will mean no consultation with the local community. There is absolutely no truth in this claim, as he made clear.
      The guidance provides the national framework under which fire authorities will be able to prepare local integrated risk management plans that are tailored to
      110
      the risks and safety needs of the local community. We shall consult in the immediate future on the draft guidance, and we would very much welcome an input from the key stakeholders. Comments made by hon. Members tonight will certainly be taken into account when we consider the responses to the consultation.
      Following the consultation, we envisage that the definitive guidance should he published in June, that fire authorities should produce a draft integrated risk management plan in September and that they should consult their local communities, employees and other interested parties over the following three months. There are a number of safeguards in the new arrangements to ensure consistency of approach, without inhibiting local flexibility and decision making. The integrated risk management plans are, as I explained, being drawn up within a framework of national guidance. Her Majesty's fire services inspectorate will be one of the bodies consulted by fire authorities, and it will establish a specialist team to provide advice, training and support to authorities. It will also examine and disseminate examples of innovation and good practice and continue to monitor the performance of authorities in providing effective fire cover arrangements.
      In addition, fire authorities must have regard to their general duty, under the best value provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, to secure continuous improvement in the way that their functions are exercised. That is the response to the question from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge about how we will ensure that there are proper standards. I have covered much of the ground, but I have not been able to answer several questions. I will write to hon. Members on those points.
      The new approach that we are seeking to introduce will deliver a fire service that is better placed to deliver community safety and one that offers a real prospect of reducing the incidence of fire, and deaths and injuries from fire. I hope that hon. Members will endorse that approach and support clause 118.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for offering to write to me with replies to the questions that he did not manage to answer. As I said earlier, Conservative Members are disposed to support the modernisation process. We are dismayed only because it has become mixed up with financing a pay settlement. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister will have only themselves to blame if the public become suspicious of the motives for modernisation.
      We support genuine modernisation and we acknowledge the fire employers' support for clause 118. I shall not press the amendment. However, we will watch closely as matters unfold. We shall not hesitate to cry foul if it becomes clear that my hypothetical cynical observer is right and the process becomes resource rather than risk driven.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 318.

      Division No. 110]

      [8:59 pm

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Burnside, David

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Clapham, Michael

      Cohen, Harry

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dismore, Andrew

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      wareing, Robert N.

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Weir, Michael

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      McDonnell, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mr. Neil Gerrard and

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Mr. Kelvin Hopkins

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Challen, Colin

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Chidgey, David

      Allan, Richard

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Paul (Gillingam)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Baird, Vera

      Coaker, Vernon

      Baker, Norman

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Coleman, Iain

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Beard, Nigel

      Corston, Jean

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cotter, Brian

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Crausby, David

      Benn, Hilary

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Berry, Roger

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dalyell, Tam

      Blunkett, rh David

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Borrow, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Breed, Colin

      Davies, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Doran, Frank

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Doughty, Sue

      Bryant, Chris

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Burden, Richard

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burgon, Colin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burnham, Andy

      Edwards, Huw

      Burstow, Paul

      Efford, Clive

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Cairns, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fitzpetrick, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Follett, Barbara

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, rh Derek

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Caton, Martin

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      112

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Linton, Martin

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Love, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lyons, John (strathkelvin)

      Gilroy, Linda

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCabe, Stephen

      Goggins, Paul

      McCafferty, Chris

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grogan, John

      MacDougall, John

      Hain, rh Peter

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mckechin, Ann

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hanson, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      McNulty, Tony

      McWalter, Tony

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harvey, Nick

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Healey, John

      Marris, Rob (Wolverth'ton SW)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Heppell, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Martlew, Eric

      Hesford, Stephen

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hinchliffe, David

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hodge, Margaret

      Miliband, David

      Holmes, Paul

      Miller, Andrew

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mole, Chris

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Moore, Michael

      Moran, Margaret

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Morely, Elliot

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mountford, Kali

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hurst Alan (Braintree)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Hara, Edward

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Organ, Diana

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Owen, Albert

      Jenkins, Brian

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Perham, Linda

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Plaskitt, James

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pound, Stephen

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Kidney, David

      Prescott, rh John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Purchase, Ken

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Purnell, James

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Lamb, Norman

      Rendel, David

      Lammy, David

      Robertson, john (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Lepper, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rooney, Terry

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Rose, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ruane, Chris

      113

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Thurso, John

      Salter, Martin

      Timms, Stephen

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Sawford, Phil

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Trickett, Jon

      Sheridan, Jim

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Singh, Marsha

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Ward, Claire

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Abd'ns & Kincardine)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      White, Brian

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Southworth, Helen

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Speller, rh John

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Squire, Rachel

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Willis, Phil

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wills, Michael

      Stevenson, George

      Winnick, David

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Woolas, Phil

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stringer, Graham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Gillian Merron and

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mr. Jim Murphy

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [25 February], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.13 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill has been extensively debated in Committee, on Report last Wednesday and today, and on Second Reading in January. We have had a wide range of interesting, detailed debates on the large number of varied subjects that are the characteristic of the Bill, which covers an enormous range of issues of concern to local government.
      This is an important deregulatory measure that extends significant new freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, as well as removing unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. The new prudential regime, which provides for a fundamental change in the capital borrowing powers of local authorities and introduces new freedom and flexibility for authorities to undertake capital projects, has been widely welcomed. Indeed, local government is particularly keen for the Bill to be enacted in time for those measures to be introduced from April 2004. There are other important new
      114
      freedoms, such as new powers for local authorities to charge for discretionary services and to trade. The better a local authority's performance, the more freedom it will have.
      New ways in which local authorities can work in partnership with business to improve the environment for their local community are being made possible through the Bill's provisions on business improvement districts. Businesses will also benefit from the new financial incentives being given to authorities to promote business growth, and we are making life easier for small businesses through provisions for small business rate relief.
      We have had the opportunity to make important reforms on topical issues of real concern to hon. Members. In particular, this evening's debate on section 28 demonstrated that there is a substantial majority in favour of abolition. That was confirmed by the votes in the House tonight and in Committee: there was an overwhelming majority in favour of reform in both. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition chose to vote against that important reform, which will remove an offensive piece of legislation that causes deep concern to many people in this country.
      We have also made important changes in relation to the fire service, with reforms designed to focus on outputs and outcomes in terms of saving lives and preventing injury. Our objective is to provide a new fire service that is properly related to modern circumstances and in which local decisions can inform the development of the service to respond to local needs. That is our objective not only for the fire service, but for all local services.
      In the words of the Local Government Association,
      "the proposals in the Bill represent significant new freedoms for local councils and will help them deliver improved services to their communities."
      I believe that the Bill will be seen as another important step in improving opportunities for local authorities to deliver high-quality services to their communities. Our objective is to help local authorities to do more and to do better, recognising the huge importance of the services that they perform. I commend the Bill to the House.
      9.17 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: At the start of our consideration on Report, we had only 24 minutes in which to discuss four important groups of amendments, which dealt with important topics such as staff transfer matters, including terms and conditions and issues relating to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and local authority charging and trading. We had hardly any time, and we dealt with only one group of amendments. That is an affront to democracy, and the business managers, especially those on the Government side, must look into it.
      It is unacceptable to our constituents that large chunks of the Bill have not been discussed. For example, in a letter sent on 3 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), Mr. Doug Benjafield, the managing director of Cleanaway, a firm in my hon. Friend's constituency, said of charging and trading:

      115
      "It seems to us that Clause 95 could jeopardise the whole process of competitive tendering by enabling such authorities to set up what would be an 'in-house' company to retain or take over certain functions or services".
      He continued:
      "If local authority 'best value' companies are able to cream off successful undertakings, there is a real danger that private sector companies will find it uneconomic to bid for some of the less profitable services, and 'best value' will simply cease to operate in practice."
      Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene, given that the subject has not been discussed by hon. Members, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
      Mr. Benjafield asks several questions:
      "First, how does the concept of 'best value' local authorities being able to set up companies to carry out certain functions or services tie in with the process of competitive tendering?
      Second, what safeguards does the Government intend adopting to ensure that such companies do not receive preferential treatment? Will they be obliged to compete with private sector companies on a 'best value' basis for each contract? How will the Minister ensure a level playing field if they do and will the same criteria be used to assess their performance as is currently used for private sector companies?"
      Those are important questions. Perhaps the Minister will assist the House and facilitate proper consideration of the Bill by answering those questions in a letter to me, and placing a copy in the Library.
      Mr. Raynsford: I will try to help the hon. Gentleman by giving an instant response. The whole thrust of the legislation is to improve local authorities' ability to work with business, among other groups. We discussed business improvement districts, growth incentives and a range of other measures designed to encourage good relations between local authorities and business. However, we also aim to improve local authorities' efficiency and effectiveness.
      I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be suggesting on behalf of the official Opposition that they oppose the idea of giving power to local authorities that can trade well in services that they deliver efficiently. Are they saying that those authorities should be prevented from doing so? Surely we should all welcome greater efficiency on the part of local authorities delivering services.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I raised the matter on Second Reading, and we think that there could be an element of unfair competition affecting private sector companies facing publicly subsidised councils carrying out their own functions. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will undertake to see a delegation from Cleanaway with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar; that would be extremely helpful—and he is nodding his head.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall give way, but only once.
      Mr. Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there were proper safeguards in respect of accounting practices, his concern could be easily dismissed?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: We did not have time to discuss the matter thoroughly, and I am not sure that the hon.
      116

      Gentleman is right. Cleanaway is one of the best run waste disposal companies, and I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to see a delegation with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar. Let us see whether we can clear up some of the problems. That would be helpful.
      The Bill materially alters the capital finance regime for local authorities. There is the combination of pooling capital rights and the botched handling of the withdrawal of local authority social housing authority grant. I gather that local authorities, despite all our protests, have not yet been notified of the withdrawal of that grant. The message to debt-free authorities from the Bill and from the Government is that the writing is on the wall.
      That, combined with the controversial measure for the repayment of overhanging debt, for which £800 million is allocated this year for highly indebted authorities in the north—in effect to provide them with a bribe to ensure that they transfer their housing authority stock and have the debt paid off at the same time—is a massive transfer of local authority finance from the south to the north.
      There are other measures in the Bill that we think are deleterious, too. For example, there are the alterations to the non-domestic rating regime. There is the fact that the regime has to be self-financing in each financial year. Transitional relief will have to be paid for within each financial year. Underfunded under-phasing will take place for businesses, large and small, that have lower revaluations. That will put them at a disadvantage.
      Combining all that with a transfer of subsidy from the housing revenue accounts of authorities that are in surplus and well run to authorities in a negative position is a swingeing measure of financial redistribution. I am not sure how much some tenants in the south, who will be subsidising tenants of poorly run councils in the north, will like this provision.
      Perhaps the most controversial measure of all is the amendment to the council tax regime. The Bill heralds regular revaluations for council tax, together with the extension of the number of council tax bands, with no relationship between the top and bottom bands. This will turn what used to be a relatively small item of household expenditure into an extremely significant item, unrelated to the ability to pay.
      I came across some statistics in preparation for yesterday's television programme on the council tax. One third of all the pension increases that pensioners have received during the past six years of the Labour Government will be soaked up in the increases in council tax that the Government have imposed. That is a shocking statistic. When we introduced the tax, it was part personal and part property. It is now becoming a pure property stealth-wealth tax, and there is no relationship between what people pay and their ability to pay. In combination with the acknowledged additional council tax supplement for all the regional bodies that the Government are to introduce, that will mean an extremely nasty stealth tax—one of the biggest that the Government have introduced.
      There are some measures in the Bill that we welcome, including prudential borrowing. Provided that it is done with safeguards, that is wholly in line with our policy of devolving policy down to the lowest possible level, and

      117
      is an example that can be followed. With reservations, we support the BID—business improvement district—regime, although it is probably limited in effect. In America, such schemes are low value, and work well because the rating system is based on property tax. In Committee we explored the way in which benefit may accrue to property owners, while tenants and lessees will pay.
      Mr. Raynsford: On the subject of BIDs, the hon. Gentleman has just commented favourably on the American system of local taxation, which is based on property tax. Will he try to explain how that fits in with his earlier comment attacking the council tax—which, incidentally, was introduced by his party and is a mixture of a property tax and a tax relating to people's receipt of local services? Why is a property tax acceptable in America but not here?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: That was a mischievous intervention by the Minister, and one of his poorer efforts. As he knows, council tax applies to private individuals who occupy and own houses. We are talking about businesses, so the scenario is entirely different. We want some mechanism by which BIDs can work. We are concerned that there is a substitution affecting what the taxpayer should pay for and what is additional in the BIDs process. Under the timetable imposed by the Government, we did not have a chance to discuss our concerns about the mechanism of council vetoes in BIDs. We would have liked the veto to operate before the vote, as it is unnecessary to go through a complicated ballot only to find that the local authority vetoes the outcome. If we had had sufficient time, without the programme motion, we would certainly have liked to explore that in greater detail.
      We did not have any time to discuss the change of the date of European and local government elections in the Bill—an important matter that was simply squeezed out by the restrictive timetable. Gerrymandering the timing of those elections is quite wrong.
      Mr. Raynsford: Oh, come on.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister believe in democracy or not? Perhaps he will tell me.
      Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is gerrymandering in presenting an option that has been the subject of widespread consultation and brings together local government and European elections in 2004 to try to encourage a higher turnout than the deplorably low turnouts in recent European and local elections?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is gerrymandering because when a term is set for a council it should be adhered to. If one lengthens or shortens it, one is interfering with the democratic right of elected councils to carry out their mandate for a full term. If it is shortened, they do not have an opportunity to complete their mandate. Once the gerrymandering principle is established, what will
      118
      we gerrymander next? Will the Government extend the term of this Parliament? Whatever next? The principle is poor, and we never had time to discuss it.
      The Bill is a highly centralising measure. It is typical of this socialist Government that they want to try to control everything from Whitehall, from the Secretary of State's office. They simply do not trust local authorities to make their own decisions on finance or anything else. This is a bad Bill, and I shall encourage my hon. Friends to vote against it on Third Reading.
      9.29 pm
      Mr. David Lepper: I welcome the Bill. Many of us spent many hours in Committee discussing its provisions, but there were some aspects that we did not have time to discuss. I particularly welcome the decisive cross-party vote tonight on the repeal of section 28. I hope that the cross-party nature of that vote will be noted in another place when it comes to debate this issue, so that we will now see an end to this iniquitous piece of legislation. Before I came to this place, I was a secondary school teacher, and since being elected to Parliament, I have heard from former students how their fear and uncertainty over section 28 added to the misery that they experienced by making them reluctant to seek protection from homophobic bullying when they needed it most. Let us end this regime here and now tonight and through the further passage of the Bill.
      My main point is that I would like to commend part 4 of the Bill, which deals with business improvement districts. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, this legislation will help to bring councils and their business communities together in a new partnership, with guaranteed funding for at least five years, to improve the appearance and prosperity of their areas. As chairman of the steering group overseeing the business improvement districts pilot project, I know the enthusiasm with which more than 20 areas across the country are now preparing schemes which they will get off the ground as soon as the legislation is in place.
      I commend the draft guidance on business improvement districts produced by a score of national organisations and agencies, co-ordinated by the Association of Town Centre Management. That guidance deals comprehensively with such vital issues as the financial management of business improvement districts, and the balloting process for setting them up. Some official Opposition Members found their copies of the guidance document somewhat elusive during our debates in Committee, and some other hon. Members lost their copies through lending them to others. Nevertheless, I know that this full and comprehensive guidance has been much welcomed by all those in the 20-plus constituencies, in which BIDs projects are now being prepared, and I know how helpful they have found it when taking forward what I believe to be a bold venture in partnership between business and local authorities.
      9.32 pm
      Mr. Edward Davey: I wish to raise three concerns before I go on to say why my hon. Friends and I will be voting in favour of the Bill. First, some mistakes remain in it, despite our best efforts to amend it. Secondly, there are some omissions from it. Thirdly, there has been a lack of debate on certain crucial parts of it. The mistakes, particularly those in clause 11 that relate to pooling, have been widely debated, and the Liberal Democrats do not accept the Government's arguments. There will be a serious impact on debt-free authorities in particular, especially with money being taken away from them so that they will be unable to tackle the problems of shortages of affordable housing in their areas. The Liberal Democrats, working with the Conservatives, have tried to persuade the Government of this. The Government came forward with a modest package of measures to try to provide some transitional relief, but we do not think that it went far enough.
      We are concerned about some aspects of the Bill that retain a degree of centralisation, especially in regard to the reserve powers retained by the Government with respect to borrowing and the reserves of councils. I also have concerns—some may suggest that they are esoteric—about clause 31, which gives the Government a wide-ranging power to provide grants for local authorities. We are very worried about that; it takes financial powers away from the House and is therefore greatly to be regretted.
      My second area of concern relates to the omissions. When the Government published the draft Bill, they said that it represented an historic change for local government and that there would be a real revolution in the relationship between central and local government. I am afraid that, for many of us, the reality is very timid when set against that rhetoric. Far greater powers need to be given down, and we need to see, that happening to restore civic pride and encourage more people of good will and competence to go into local government, whether as councillors or as officials. We also need to see electoral reform in local government, to ensure that it becomes more representative and to prevent the corruption and the monopoly of power associated with one-party local government. Only proportional representation through the single transferable vote system can break that monopoly of political power.
      We need to go far further with our local government finance reforms, and this party wants council tax to be abolished. I find it bizarre that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has criticised the Government's timid reforms of council tax, which will make it a little fairer, because Conservative policy is to retain that incredibly unfair tax. For him to say at this moment—council taxes are going up so much—that he wants to retain the unfairness in the system is extraordinary.
      I make this recommendation to the Minister: if the Government are to propose more local government reforms, they would do well to read material coming from bodies such as the Local Government Information
      120
      Unit, which produced a good document called "Commission on Local Governance" to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) contributed. It made far-ranging proposals that had cross-party support in local government and which really would have represented major change with respect to relations between central Government and local government.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am becoming a little weary of the Liberal Democrats proposing their local income tax system without putting a figure on it every time we have such a debate. Will the hon. Gentleman put a figure on the average local income tax he reckons would be needed to replace council tax; and what redistribution system would he adopt to redistribute money raised from the richer areas to the poorer?
      Mr. Davey: We will certainly do that in due course, but if I went down that road tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me totally out of order. In terms of getting weary of other people's speeches, the incoherence and inconsistency that we have had to endure from Conservative Front Benchers throughout the Bill's passage has been particularly tiresome.
      My next concern is the lack of debate in Committee and on Report on key aspects, particularly the trading and charging proposals in clauses 93 to 100. While the Government must take some blame for the lack of debate due to the various programme motions, the Conservatives should share the blame. Those who bother to read the reports of proceedings in Standing Committee will see how much time that Conservative Front Benchers wasted on trivial points, preventing us from dealing with the more serious issues.
      The Government have serious questions to answer with respect to the trading and charging clauses. For example, they have used one model for local authorities to operate new powers to trade and charge—the company model. That might be restrictive, as local authorities could undertake many types of trading, which would effectively be at the very margins of their activities and also be unsuitable for setting up a legal structure as detailed as a company.
      Mr. Raynsford: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the arrangement for discretionary charges, which will also be available under the Bill, covers those marginal circumstances. In response to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold involving a level playing field in relation to private sector firms that might trade in the same area, it is important for local authority trading to be on a proper basis, which is why we propose the company structure.
      Mr. Davey: The Minister may have made an important point for those people who will read the report of our debate, which shows why we needed more time to discuss those particular clauses. The understanding of many people in local government,

      121
      having read the Bill, is that the powers under clause 93 with respect to charging link to powers in clause 95 with respect to trading. If he is saying that local authorities could get involved with and charge for some marginal activities without setting up a company structure, that is welcome clarification. We need more time—possibly an Adjournment debate or a debate elsewhere—to explore other aspects of those clauses. Perhaps some fears held by people in local authorities could be put to rest.
      Let me make one other observation, which represents a real concern for local authorities. It involves how the comprehensive performance assessment categories have been tied to freedoms in the Bill, especially with respect to trading. The concern is that a local authority could set up a company to trade, working in partnership with the private sector and the other partners, only for a future assessment under the CPA framework to change its category. That would prevent it from trading, because different freedoms and flexibility would apply and old freedoms would be taken away. If that is to be the position in law, it will create great uncertainty when a company to trade or a partnership is established. That could prevent those partnerships and that trading from happening in the first place.
      Mr. Raynsford: The Audit Commission will consult in the near future on proposals for the refreshment of CPA. We have been discussing with the Audit Commission a mechanism to ensure that, if there is a change in the category applicable to a local authority, there should be appropriate transitional arrangements, so that there is no immediate disruption of arrangements such as he has identified. There may be a period of grace for the authority to improve its performance, so that it can continue to exercise those responsibilities.
      Mr. Davey: The Minister was trying to be helpful, but unfortunately he was not helpful enough. I understood that that was what the Government were consulting on, but it may not be sufficient, especially if the local authority wants to set up a robust trading arrangement with the private sector involving, for example, private investment capital. If there is the danger of an Audit Commission review, even with a period of grace, the possibility of ending the trading arrangement could prevent the private capital from being advanced in the first place. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that issue. We tabled new clauses to deal with that problem, but unfortunately we were not able to debate them. I hope that the Minister will give that point particular attention, and will accept our amendments in the other place.
      I have dealt with our concerns about the mistakes in the Bill, the omissions and the lack of debate on key clauses, especially on trading and charging. In my concluding remarks, I want to focus on the provisions on which we agree with the Government, because they are the reason why we will support the Government in the Lobby tonight. The prudential borrowing regime that the Bill puts in place is an issue on which Liberal
      122
      Democrats have campaigned for many years. Although it is not perfect, it is a major step forward and deserves the support of both sides of the House.
      Business improvement districts represent a real opportunity for local authorities to work with business, and for businesses to set the agenda and set the pace of improvements in our town centres. I was proud to be at the launch of Kingston First only two weeks ago. Kingston town centre management is working with the London Development Agency and the local private sector. Kingston may be one of the first town centres to benefit from this legislation, so people in our area particularly welcome that provision.
      We agree with the Government over their council tax reforms. As the Minister will know, we want to go a lot further, but these are steps in the right direction to make an appallingly unfair tax slightly less unfair.
      Finally, we have made sure that section 28 will be removed from the statute books. That is a real step forward, and it had huge support in the Lobby. It is to be regretted that the Leader of the Conservative Opposition decided that he would change his position yet again. He has previously been on the record implying that it was now time that section 28 was removed from the statute book. He has now done another volte-face, and he has flip-flopped and gone the other way. The Conservative party is incredibly divided on this and many other issues. Only 77 Conservative Members of Parliament were in the Lobby with the Leader of the Conservative Opposition, which shows that he was unable to take even half the members of his parliamentary party with him.
      The Bill has much to commend it, and the House should give it a Third Reading. I hope that the other place will make the amendments that the Liberal Democrats tried to make, but we were unfortunately unable to persuade the Government of their merits.
      9.44 pm
      Dr. Iddon: This is a complex Bill. We sat for 14 two-and-a-half-hour sittings, one of which was extended. I listened to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) complain about the lack of time, but much of that was due to the fact that the Opposition laboured some of the points, especially in the early stages of the Committee. In my view, they only have themselves to blame for not having the time to discuss some of the clauses that he complained about. Any hon. Member who is any doubt about the complexity of the Bill should have a look at clause 64. I still cannot get my head around the algebra for calculating the non-domestic rate multiplier. I have to confess, as a member of the Committee, that there are similar clauses that I still do not understand.
      Local authorities have welcomed, and will welcome, the ability to borrow, the ability to trade, the relaxation in business rates, the introduction of improvement districts, and even, dare I say it, the controversial matter that we are discussing—the relaxation in local controls on fire brigades. I understand that it is a difficult time to announce the latter measure, given what is going on, but I am sure that in the end it will be welcome.
      I want particularly to mention the ability to trade. As my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, I was chairman of housing in Bolton for 10 years, and we had

      123
      a great deal of trouble buying double glazing from private firms. For example, the windows fell out because they were not secured properly, and burglars could easily get in. I could give a long catalogue of our troubles with private firms selling us double glazing and ripping us off into the bargain. Many householders also suffered from that. We therefore decided to set up our own double glazing production unit, which was greatly welcomed by tenants. Former tenants who had bought their houses wanted to buy the same double glazing product from us, but we were restricted from selling it to them by the Government who were previously in control. The ability to trade on a level playing field—not to have any advantages, but to trade equally with the private sector—has never existed before, and the independence that it offers to local authorities is very welcome. I assure hon. Members that Bolton's double glazing product would knock the spots off any private sector product. My colleagues in local authorities would say that it does not go far enough, hut it is a huge step in the right direction.
      I turn to housing finance. In Committee we had a big wrangle—the hon. Member for Cotswold mentioned it again tonight—about the pooling of capital receipts in housing. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise the difficulties that we face in the north. He criticised, as he criticised in Committee, the pooling of capital receipts in order to spend them where they are most needed. Houses in the south and south-east of England, especially here in London, are sold for huge amounts of money. In the north, we cannot get such high capital receipts. And what do Conservative Members want to spend them on? Keeping their council taxes down. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the conditions in which people in the north live—in council houses and in private sector houses—are so bad that he should come and have a look at them. I am in favour of pooling capital receipts and spending them on housing, not on keeping council taxes down in the south and south-east of England.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he criticised me. He knows full well that the rules prevent capital receipts from housing being used to subsidise council tax—that simply cannot happen. The other factor is that if one takes money away from councils that have sold their housing, they will not be able to build any more houses, so people in those local authorities will suffer.
      Dr. Iddon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are ways and means of spending capital receipts—I have not got time to go into them. He knows the ways around the rules as well as I do.
      I very much welcome the separation of housing benefit from the housing revenue account, which makes the housing revenue account completely transparent for the first time. When I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister in Committee whether that was the end of the double whammy whereby council house tenants pay for the housing benefit of their neighbours through council house rents, then, like the rest of us, pay again through the taxation system, he agreed that it was.
      124
      I welcome the end of section 28. I listened to the debate in Committee and I have listened to it again tonight. People have become passionate for the right reasons. We have spent an awful lot of time on this—and, to be frank, I wonder whether it was worth while spending so much time on it. We just wanted a quick end to section 28. It has not happened quickly; indeed, it has not happened yet. There will, of course, be a battle in the other place.
      I do not understand the Conservative Opposition's amendments this evening. They have been criticising the Government for bureaucracy in local government and education, yet, if one considers their amendments closely, one sees that they would increase bureaucracy. They wanted ballots—albeit on a small number of occasions—and they wanted schools to report on various things. They have to get their act ready. Either they want a reduction in bureaucracy or they want the increase in bureaucracy that they have been arguing for this evening.
      I congratulate the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), on the hard work that they have done. In the early Committee stages, I saw the Minister under considerable pressure for the obvious reason that he had other matters to deal with. On one occasion at least, I wondered how much sleep he had had. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend.
      9.50 pm
      Angela Watkinson: I was not a member of the Committee that worked on this Bill but I have listened carefully throughout the Report stage and have heard some informed and constructive contributions. I want to say how bitterly disappointed I am about the result of the vote on section 28. The House has made a serious mistake.
      Section 28 was repealed in Scotland about two years ago. The results of that should have served as a valuable lesson to this House. Some of the lesson plans and publications that I have seen—which are intended for education in schools and which will become permissible for use should the Bill complete its passage through Parliament—have shocked me by their explicit content. This is not education; it is information—and far more information than is necessary or beneficial for young minds. I have learned things that I had reached this great age without knowing or needing to know; indeed, I would be far happier not knowing them. Pupils need protection from graphic descriptions and illustrations of inappropriate sexual information in publications that could encourage experimentation.
      Several hon. Members have justified the repeal of section 28 by reference to homophobic bullying. I am a governor of two secondary schools. They have good policies on bullying, as most schools now do. Those policies are not on specific types of bullying and they are not for all sorts of bullying except homophobic bullying. Homophobic bullying is perfectly adequately covered by the policies, along with every other sort of bullying. I therefore do not see that the repeal of section 28 can be justified on bullying grounds.

      125
      Letters that I have received have told me that the majority of parents want to keep section 28. It gave them confidence and it curbed the content of teaching materials and publications, ensuring that vulnerable, young and immature—by their very nature—people are not influenced, in their formative years, into experimenting with what can be presented to them as a lifestyle choice.
      Over the years, we have come a long way from the days when homosexuals were commonly subjected to violent assault. Great efforts have been made to change public attitudes from hostility to tolerance and acceptance. So successfully has that been done that an adult's sexual preference is no longer a matter for comment or even interest. However, we have a duty to protect school pupils and young people in youth organisations from the active promotion of homosexuality, which is quite a separate thing from tolerance and acceptance. There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, tolerance and acceptance, which should be encouraged, and, on the other hand, approval, which is a matter of personal judgment, and promotion, which is not only unjustified but a serious encroachment into an area of child development that more properly rests in parental responsibility. The Government have failed in that important duty to protect schoolchildren.
      I am also concerned about the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. I do not have a declarable interest, but one of my daughters is a firefighter in the London fire brigade, as is my son-in-law who is married to another daughter. The connection means that I am regularly contacted by serving firefighters who want to funnel their views through me. They are extremely worried about the effect that the risk review could have on firefighters. It could even lead to the closure of fire stations. Indeed, I held a meeting with my local chief fire officer on that subject.
      Upminster does not have the benefit of a fire station. It has to rely on Romford, Hornchurch and Wennington. In an e-mail to me, a serving firefighter said:
      "It is not only Section 19 which is a worry, but some of the other recommendations in the Bain report … regarding fire cover. Some of these included reducing fire cover at night, when although there are less fires there are more deaths due to these fires … There are high possibilities that Romford will be made a 1 appliance station, and that Hornchurch or Wennington will be made Day Manning",
      which is full cover during the daytime only. It went on to say:
      "Bain also spoke about having retained (part-time) firefighters working with wholetime",
      which is also a possibility for Hornchurch and Romford. The e-mail then stated:
      "In fact there are numerous permutations, and they all lead to reduced fire cover, greater chance of death, and delayed attendance times."
      I understand that the density of building in Upminster and the fact that it has had a fairly stable population over a long period mean that there should be no significant change in fire cover in the area. I want to be reassured about that so that I can pass that on to the many firefighters who contact me.
      9.57 pm
      Mr. Bob Blizzard: Clause 117 deals with two of the greatest problems that confront this country: litter and dog fouling. Any hon. Member who thinks that they are not that important is not knocking on enough doors. Although people are exercised about the international situation at the moment, week in, week out, month in, month out, they talk about litter and dog fouling because they are angry about it. I am delighted that the clause addresses that. The measure to allow councils to keep the revenue that they raise from fixed penalty fines by en forcing the litter laws already on the statute book is long overdue. I first proposed the idea at 5 am in this Chamber in 1999 and have since introduced two private Member's Bills to that effect, one of which is timetabled for discussion on 4 April. I hope, however, that the Government's Bill will make my Bill unnecessary.
      I want to give local authorities the means to enforce the law. We know that the laws are not enforced. Only about 50 of 450 authorities employ litter wardens and only about £70,000 a year goes to the central Exchequer from litter fines. Members would have to roam far and wide in their constituencies before finding someone who has been fined. In recent months, authorities have carried out pilot schemes and those that have taken their scheme seriously have had great success.
      I hope that the Government will issue guidance to local authorities so that they take their new responsibilities seriously. By enforcing the laws, we will make the polluter pay. Taxpayers pay £450 million a year in a culture that allows people to drop litter, to walk around in it, to pay a lot of money to have it cleared up and then to moan when it has not been cleared up properly. I hope that when the Bill passes its Commons stage tonight and goes to another place, it will go a long way towards finally ridding the country of a nuisance with which people, are fed up, but which nobody has tackled. I congratulate the Government on bringing the measure, long promised, to the statute book.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 136.

      Division No. 111]

      [10:00 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Borrow, David

      Allan, Richard

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Bailey, Adrian

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Baird, Vera

      Breed, Colin

      Baker, Norman

      Brennan, Kevin

      Banks, Tony

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Barnes, Harry

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Barrett, John

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Beard, Nigel

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Bryant, Chris

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Burden, Richard

      Benn, Hilary

      Burgon, Colin

      Bennett, Andrew

      Burnham, Andy

      Berry, Roger

      Burstow, Paul

      Betts, Clive

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Caborn, rh Richard

      127

      Cairns, David

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gidley, Sandra

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Goggins, Paul

      Caplin, Ivor

      Green, Mathew (Ludlow)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Grogan, John

      Casale, Roger

      Hain, rh Peter

      Caton, Martin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Challen, Colin

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Chidgey, David

      Hanson, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Harvey, Nick

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Croaker, Vernon

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hermon, Lady

      Cohen, Harry

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Coleman, Iain

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Corston, Jean

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cotter, Brian

      Holmes, Paul

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Crausby, David

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Hughes, Beverely (Streford & Urmston)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Humbles, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Irrance-Davies, Huw

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jamieson, David

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Jenkins, Brian

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doughty, Sue

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Efford, Clive

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Etherington, Bill

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Kidney David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Flint, Caroline

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Follett, Barbara

      Foster, rh Derek

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Lamb, Norman

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Lammy, David

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      128

      Lepper, David

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Leslie, Christopher

      purchase, Ken

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Purnell, James

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Linton, Martin

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Love, Andrew

      Rendel, David

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCabe, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      McCafferty, Chris

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruane, Chris

      MacDougall, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McFall, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McKechin, Ann

      Salter, Martin

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McNulty, Tony

      Sedemore, Brian

      McWalter, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Martlew, Eric

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Milburn, rh Alan

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

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Southworth Helen

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Spellar, rh John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Squire, Rachel

      Mole, Chris

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Moore, Michael

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moran, Margaret

      Stevenson, George

      Morley, Elliot

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mountford, Kali

      Mudie, George

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mullin, Chris

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stringer, Graham

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Organ, Diana

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Owen, Albert

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Whre F)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Perham, Linda

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Picking, Anne

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Timms, Stephen

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Plaskitt, James

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Touhing, Don (Islwyn)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Trickett, Jon

      Pound, Stephen

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prescott, rh John

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      129

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Winnick, David

      Ward, Claire

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watts, David

      Woodward, Shaun

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      woolas, Phils

      White, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Willis, Phil

      Gillian Merron and

      Wills, Michael

      Mr. Jim Murphy

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heald, Oliver

      Amess, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hendry Charles

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Baldry, Tony

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Barker, Gregory

      Howard, rh Michael

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bercow, John

      Jack, rh Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Blunt Crispin

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Boswell, Tim

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Brady, Graham

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brazier, Julian

      Leigh, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Burns, Simon

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Burnside, David

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Cameron, David

      Lidington, David

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Loughton, Tim

      Cash, William

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      Maclean, rh David

      Clappison, James

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Curry, rh David

      Mercer, Patrick

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Norman, Archie

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Evans, Nigel

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Paice, James

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Pickles, Eric

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Flight, Howard

      Randall, John

      Flook, Adrian

      Redwood, rh John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Robathan, Andrew

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Francois, Mark

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Ruffley, David

      Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Goodman, Paul

      Selous, Andrew

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Grayling, Chris

      Shepherd, Richard

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Simmonds Mark

      Greenway, John

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Gummer, rh John

      Spring, Richard

      Hague, rh William

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Hammond, Philip

      Steen, Anthony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Streeter, Gary

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      130

      Syms, Robert

      Wiggin, Bill

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wilkinson, John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wilshire, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Walter, Robert

      Young, rh Sir George

      Waterson, Nigel

      Watkinson, Angela

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whittingdale, John

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Hugh Robertson

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) ( Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      CLIMATE CHANGE LEVY
      That the draft Climate Change Levy (Use as Fuel) (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 4th February be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      SOCIAL SECURITY
      That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

      SOCIAL SECURITY
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) ( Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I think the Ayes have it.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Division deferred till Wednesday 12 March, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].

      SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) ( Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.— [Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

      INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      That the draft Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

    DRAFT CORRUPTION BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    Ordered,
    That the Lords Message of 12th February relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Corruption Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
    That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution relating to the said Joint Committee.
    That a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Corruption Bill.
    That the Committee shall have power—

    (i) to send for persons, papers and records;

    (ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

    (iii) to report from time to time;

    (iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

    (v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

    That Vera Baird, Mr Edward Gamier, Mr John MacDougall, Mr Mark Oaten, Mr Richard Shepherd, Mr Paul Stinchcombe and Dr Desmond Turner be members of the Committee.—[Derek Twigg.]

    STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL AFFAIRS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 117 ( Standing Committee on Regional Affairs),
    That—

    (1) the matter of progress in developing the role of the Government Offices in the Regions (GOs), being a matter relating to regional affairs in England, be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs;

    (2) the Committee do meet at a quarter-past Two o'clock on Thursday 3rd April at Westminster to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

    (3) the proceedings at the meeting be brought to a conclusion at a quarter-past Five o'clock.—[Perek Twigg.]

    Question agreed to.

    ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That Phil Sawford be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Alan Simpson be added.—[Keith Hill.]

PETITION

  BAE Systems (Brough)
  10.16 pm
  David Davis: This petition is from the work force at BAE Systems, Brough, where the Hawk aircraft is manufactured. They have faced savage job losses in the past few years, and again face another 400 to 450 redundancies in the coming few months, partly as a result of delays in the ordering of the aircraft by the Ministry of Defence. The petition states:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's Government do all in its power to ensure that negotiations concerning the future of BAE Systems Brough, and the manufacture of Hawk aircraft, are resolved as quickly as possible, so as to ensure the continued viability of the facility and the protection of their jobs.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Post Offices (Sutton)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
10.17 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the future of post offices in my constituency and in the borough of Sutton. I hope that, in this brief debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have the opportunity to make one or two points about post offices in his constituency.
When I last raised the issue in an Adjournment debate just over two and a half years ago, the threat hanging over the sub-post office network in my constituency was just that—a threat. Today, the threat is turning into a reality. Post offices are closing in my constituency. The closures are piecemeal and cloaked in secrecy. My constituents have been left with the strong impression that the Post Office is paying lip service to consultation and just going through the motions when it comes to closing post offices.
During my previous Adjournment debate on the matter, I pointed out that, based on parliamentary answers, the local impact of
"the switch from pension book to credit transfer will mean that at least one in three of the 16 sub-post offices in my constituency will be under threat, because more than 40 per cent. of their business comes from work for the Benefits Agency."—[Official Report, 5 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 134.]
Five sub-post offices are therefore at risk of closure in the borough of Sutton in my constituency. Since the previous debate on the subject, two sub-post offices have closed and the future of another is in question. Yet another is due for the chop through a formal consultation process.
Let me outline what has happened in the past year. On 23 July, Mr. Drew McBride of the Post Office national consultation team wrote to tell me of the plan to close the Collingwood road sub-post office in my constituency. Residents and I had until 23 August to respond. I hope that the Minister agrees that consulting over the summer, when many people are on holiday and elsewhere, is poor practice. It denies people the opportunity to have their say. In his letter, Mr. McBride pointed out that there were three post offices in a half a mile radius of the Collingwood road branch: Sutton post office in the St. Nicholas centre; Oldfields road post office on the Sutton bypass, and the Grove road post office.
It is as if Mr. McBride and his team did no more than draw a circle on a map. He did not bother to factor in simple facts, such as half a mile up a hill being different from the same distance on the flat. Getting to the Grove road post office necessitates such a climb. He also neglected to consider the fact that one of the alternative post offices was on the other side of a busy dual carriageway. Despite the short notice of the consultation and the holiday period, more than 100 people signed the petition calling for the Collingwood road branch to remain open. The residents received the all-party backing of the local authority.
Insult was added to injury when the closing date for consultation was set at 23 August. Mr. McBride wrote on 30 August to tell me that the closure would go ahead
134
on 23 September. The closure appears to have been pre-planned, pre-programmed and pre-determined. It took Mr. McBride only seven days to weigh up and reject the representations of the local community, the council and me.
The closure programme progresses. On 24 February, Mr. McBride wrote to tell me about the proposed closure of the Oldfields road post office. However, six months ago, he wrote:
"Of course, customers have a choice as to the Post Office branch they wish to use in the future. However, I believe that the nearest, most convenient branches are located at High Street, Sutton and Oldfields Road."
Words fail me. The Post Office offers the prospect of a specific post office only to snatch it away from constituents.
Such behaviour prompts the question, "Which post office will close next?" It is time for the Post Office to be much more open and honest about its plans. Will the Minister supply a list of the post offices that are earmarked for closure in the borough of Sutton so that we can scrutinise the process more carefully?
I hope that the Minister will undertake to ensure that the Post Office consultation team apologises to the community around the former Collingwood road post office for misleading it about the possibility of using the Oldfields road post office. People had it for only six months. In his letter, Mr. McBride points out that the nearest post offices are Sutton post office in the St. Nicholas centre, which is 7.7 miles away from the Oldfields road branch, and Gander Green lane post office, which is 0.4 miles away.
The Post Office is supposed to ensure that 95 per cent. of its customers live within half a mile of the nearest post office. That is no longer the case for many residents in Collingwood road or on the Cheam Park Farm estate. The piecemeal closures will result in growing gaps in the network. The elderly, the disabled and families who rely on post office services will suffer. Simply drawing circles on maps, with no local knowledge, will not benefit people.
Will the Minister ensure a proper mechanism to take account of the local factors that I have outlined? One driver for closures is loss of business due to plans for electronic transfer of benefits and pensions into bank accounts. The thrust of the information campaign surrounding the change downplays the option of the Post Office card accounts.
The implementation of such accounts is even more worrying. It appears as if they have been set up to fail. Why will not the trials of the new computer system finish until five days before the system is due to go live? Where is the margin for error? What are the contingency arrangements if the IT fails? If it works, will customers be able to use it?
During the Christmas Adjournment debate, I raised several anxieties about the Post Office card account on behalf of my local Age Concern. In a letter to Postwatch, Marion Harper, the chief officer of Sutton Age Concern, wrote:
"We are very concerned about the entire concept of changes to pension collection, but we would welcome an explanation as to how the new system will affect older people with mobility problems, particularly arthritis, and older people who are visually impaired or blind."

135
Postwatch's reply was very disturbing. Despite pressing the Department for Work and Pensions for an answer, it remained unclear how collections of benefits or pensions would happen where a person did not have a regular carer or helper and was taken ill suddenly. Giving out the PIN would be considered a breach of the terms and conditions of their account, so they will go without their pension.
How will that problem be dealt with? When I asked Pensions Agency staff that question during a recent meeting of the Sutton Seniors Forum, they were unable to offer an answer. Can the Minister tell us tonight how people who become ill will be able to access their pension using a card account? When I raised those matters in the Christmas Adjournment debate, I was told that I would receive a response in writing from the Ministers who are responsible. To date, I have not received that response and I hope that we can obtain some answers tonight or get something in writing as soon as possible.
Local post offices play a vital role in our community. They are one of the building blocks of our economic vitality and shopping centres. On the basis of my experience of the closure programme in my area so far, I have no confidence whatever that the Post Office is really listening to the concerns of local authorities, residents or MPs in its consultation. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and make a change in that process for the future.
10.25 pm
Tom Brake: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate.
Post offices are a lifeline in many rural communities, but their value to urban and suburban communities should not be underestimated either. When it seemed that Roundshaw post office was going to close, local people, many of whom do not have access to a car, were distraught. Fortunately, that particular battle has been won, as a very sensible solution was arrived at involving the post office sharing space with a new supermarket.
I am glad that we won that battle, but what alarms me is that there are other battles to be fought regarding future local post office closures and we do not know where the enemy lines are or what the rules of engagement are. We hear rumours that a particular post office may be under threat of closure, but as the Post Office is not forthcoming with its planned programme of closures, such rumours cannot be disproved or confirmed.
That is why I shall ask the Minister just one thing—to guarantee that there will be no more post office closures in the borough until a meaningful consultation process is put in place that will allow residents to put their case in a meaningful way. That is the guarantee that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend are seeking and that I hope that the Minister can deliver.
10.27 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this
136
debate. I know that he is assiduous in his attention to issues that are relevant to elderly people in particular, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) have made during this short debate.
Both hon. Members set out the concerns of their constituents about proposals in their area. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the proposed closure of Oldfields road post office. That proposal is indeed part of the Post Office's programme for restructuring the urban post office network. I understand, however, that the proposal for that particular office has been suspended to enable Post Office Ltd. to recheck some of the data relating to it. Once that has been done, it is envisaged that the consultation will start again from scratch. It is helpful that I can point to that fact, which makes it clear that, contrary to what he said, the process is not on tram lines, but is being taken forward very carefully and in a very thoughtful way in order to ensure that the integrity of the post office network, and access to it in every part of the country, are maintained.
Mr. Burstow: On the notification of the suspension of the consultation process, can the Minister indicate when the decision was made?
Mr. Timms: I am afraid that I do not know exactly when the decision was made. I understand that the data on the closure that have been published and put into the public domain were correct and accurate, but that some of the information supplied to Postwatch was not. The Post Office took the view that it should do the right thing, check the data and then go right back to the start of the consultation process, which helpfully, from my point of view, demonstrates that the process will be fair and proper, as it should be.
The rationalisation and modernisation of the urban network is part of the process of maintaining a viable nationwide network of post offices. We need to go through that process if we are to maintain a good level of accessibility in every part of the country and provide a wider range of better quality services to post office customers, as we must. Both hon. Members complained about the proposed closures, but they did not suggest alternative closures. For the reasons that I am about to set out, it is essential to reduce the number of post offices.
It was a key recommendation of the performance and innovation unit's report about the future of the post office network, which was broadly supported by Liberal Democrat Members, that if the Post Office decided that fewer offices were needed in some urban areas, the Government should consider providing financial assistance to the Post Office to ensure that the sub-postmasters affected could be adequately compensated for the loss of value of their business.
Last November, following parliamentary approval of the funding, Post Office Ltd. initiated its programme. I should emphasise that the development of closure proposals, the consultation process and subsequent decisions on closure are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. rather than for the Government. However, it is important that the process be undertaken properly and thoughtfully, and, in particular, that the consultation should be well managed.

137
It is important to understand why the post office network in urban areas needs restructuring and why its income has declined. The reasons go back over 20 years. Past under-investment is certainly one factor, but greater mobility and changes in shopping and financial habits have also sharply reduced customer numbers. Of course the Post Office is not alone in having had to deal with such changes; other networks, such as those of the retail banks, have been scaled back as well. Post office networks in other countries have been through similar changes; for example, I understand that in Germany, to achieve consistent profitability, the number of post office branches was reduced from 30,000, a much higher number than in the UK, to 13,000, significantly lower than the current UK number. Many other countries have embarked on a similar process.
Some factors have had a particularly big impact in the UK. Post office income here has been heavily dependent on benefit payments, but over 42 per cent. of benefit recipients now access their benefit payments via bank accounts, compared with only 26 per cent. in 1996. That substantial reduction results from people changing the way in which they want to keep their money.
If we compare the 2001–02 financial year with that of five years previously, we find that the number of retirement pensions and widows benefits paid by order books and giros had dropped by more than 1 million, from just over 6 million to fewer than 5 million, even though the total number of pension recipients went up by more than 1 million. Child benefit payments made in that way dropped from just under 5 million to fewer than 4 million. Payments of incapacity benefit at post offices fell even more dramatically, from more than 2.5 million to fewer than 1 million. All that was the result of decisions made by benefit recipients.
Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister consider the principal concern that my hon. Friend and I have put to him tonight—the piecemeal nature of the process that we have seen in our borough so far, which means that we are unable to see the totality of the plans and therefore to comment on them intelligently on behalf of our constituents? The plans proposed closing the Collingwood road branch and cited Oldfields road as being available, but now that is closing as well.
Mr. Timms: I shall certainly address that issue. It is important, however, that I set out for the House why the process is necessary, and, indeed, in the interests of our communities and of the post office network.
The number of people receiving their benefits at the post office has sharply fallen. The total number of people receiving jobseeker's allowance has fallen, which is good news, but that has reduced post office income. Girobank transactions at post offices fell by 37 per cent. between March 1997 and March 2002. National Savings transactions fell by 24 per cent., telephone bill payments by 25 per cent. and postal orders by 13 per cent. Those reductions have been only modestly offset by increases in the number of transactions for motor vehicle licences, lottery sales and bureau de change services.
The consequence is that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and many urban areas throughout the country, there is now too little business for the number of post offices. The Post Office
138
has the biggest retail network of any organisation in Europe, with 50 per cent. more branches than all the UK banks put together. More than 1,000 of the 9,000 urban sub-post offices have at least 10 other post offices within a mile. The volume of business through the network is simply no longer sufficient to support so dense a network.
The Post Office programme is intended to restore the urban network to commercial viability, which all of us want to achieve. It aims to restore the confidence of the sub-postmasters, making it possible to attract much needed new investment. Earlier this evening, with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I met a deputation from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The federation has recognised and made it clear that
"There is an urgent need for re-structuring … Tough decisions must be made in order to ensure a viable network for the future to create bigger, better and brighter post offices."
I agree.
The programme relates only to the urban network. Our commitment to ending avoidable closures in the rural network remains, and in the last quarter of last year the net closure figure for rural offices nationally was nil—the first time that anyone can remember there not being a reduction in numbers. However, Post Office officials will progressively visit every urban area to make a careful study of the configuration of the offices and of local factors such as public transport availability, demographics and geography in order to decide whether a particular office that the postmaster wishes to close can be allowed to do so.
Tom Brake: To what degree does the Minister think elected Members, councillors and the local community should be involved in the formulation of those decisions?
Mr. Timms: I will come to that precise point, if the hon. Gentleman bears with me. It is a requirement of the process that the Post Office has established that all the parties he mentions be consulted—indeed, Members of Parliament will be written to at the start of the consultation process. It is important that that takes place.
Initially, the programme is to focus primarily on smaller urban offices where sub-postmasters are under the greatest pressure. Many sub-postmasters want to close their business and receive fair compensation, as the package offers. That is our starting point. I am almost certain that in the constituency cases that the hon. Gentlemen highlighted, the starting point of the process has been that the postmasters have wanted to close their office.
The Government will meet the costs of compensation to a total of £180 million over the next three years. We are providing a furl her £30 million for modernising and adapting the offices that remain. The key to improving standards in the remaining offices will be the increased volume of business that they can expect, but the grants of up to £10,000 for each office expecting to take on a significant number of additional customers—which must be matched by the same sum from the postmaster—will also provide an important boost. This is the first time that the Government have undertaken a

139
programme of investment in urban sub-post offices. The measure is additional to the PIU report recommendations, which in general were warmly welcomed.
As part of the package, the Post Office will generally require the receiving offices to improve their facilities and extend their opening hours. To an increasing extent, we will be able to expect sub-post offices to maintain the same hours as the associated retail businesses, and to improve their service to customers. Thus the quality of service that people can expect from their local post office will be improved.
The properly managed programme on which the Post Office has embarked is far preferable to the alternative of unmanaged closures resulting from falling income, which would cause much greater disruption to customers. At the end of the programme, more than 95 per cent. of people living in urban areas will still be within a mile of a post office. I think that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned half a mile, but one mile is the measurement used—and the majority will still be within half a mile.
The hon. Gentleman has talked about the other post offices close to Oldfields road. The programme that is being taken forward will follow the code of practice agreed between Consignia and the consumer watchdog, Postwatch. For every proposed closure, merger or relocation, there will be an independent consultation process lasting at least a calendar month, which will be extended to allow for Bank holidays. The consultation will be conducted by Post Office Ltd., but will closely involve Postwatch. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), I can add that it will include the local Member of Parliament, who will be written to at the beginning of the process. To ensure that the needs of all customers, including the elderly, disabled people, those on low incomes and others, have been properly considered, Post Office Ltd. will, in developing its proposals, take account of factors such as accessibility, viability of the remaining post offices, transport links—where the bus stops are—opening hours and numbers of counter positions.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked me whether I could provide the entire list of post offices that are being considered for closure. I cannot do that because there is no predetermined list of post offices that will be considered. No arithmetical formula is being applied to determine the number of closures in an area. The closures in an area will be determined by the present density of offices in close proximity to one another, current and future business volumes, the preferences of individual sub-postmasters—an important consideration—and the public consultation process, which will take place in respect of every proposal, whether it is for closure, merger or relocation.
In some cases, a sub-postmaster may have indicated a wish to close. However, taking account of the position and prospects of neighbouring offices, it will be concluded that closure of that particular office is not acceptable. If the sub-postmaster still wishes to leave, that will need to be on the basis of a commercial sale of
140
the business. One of the consequences of the programme should be a revival of the commercial market for sub-post offices, which has declined in recent years.
Proposals on the future of any individual office will not be taken in isolation but will be drawn up in the context of other offices nearby. The Post Office wants to continue to provide services in convenient locations readily accessible to its customers, which will have the capacity to deal with future levels of demand and will provide improvements. Improving the quality of what is provided at local post offices is an important objective of the programme.
At the start of the programme—the stage that we are in at the moment—all the closures will be in response to requests from those running sub-post offices. Towards the end of the three-year programme there may need to be a small number of involuntary but compensated closures to finalise the shape of the urban network. We are not at that stage yet.
More than 1,800 urban sub-post offices in the UK are in the 10 per cent. most disadvantaged wards in the indices of deprivation 2000. I want to make it clear that, other than in exceptional circumstances, the scope of the urban reinvention programme will not extend to any post office in one of those deprived urban areas that are more than half a mile from the next post office. They are often the last retail outlet of any sort in the area. We want to improve and sustain post offices in deprived urban districts by means of a separate scheme to provide funding for investment and improvement to post office branches that are at risk of closure.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced at the end of last year the details of a £15 million scheme for England to support core post office services and the development of associated retail facilities in those areas. The compensation being paid under the Post Office's programme will be based on terms agreed between Post Office Ltd. and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The payment will be equivalent to 28 months of the remuneration of an outgoing sub-postmaster, but based on the best annual remuneration for a financial year since 1999. That is based on long-standing arrangements through the joint discretionary fund. Payments are subject to certain conditions, such as a requirement that sub-postmasters at closing branches offer active support for customers transferring to surrounding branches that remain open.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the move to automated credit transfer of benefit payments. I expect that to start on schedule in April, as we always said it would. Over two years, there will be a carefully managed programme of transition from current arrangements, which are essentially based on ration books, to a system based entirely on ACT for benefit payments. We are committed to making sure that people will continue to be able to collect their benefits in cash from the post office if they wish. There will be post office access to a range of bank accounts. Customers will have three account options when deciding how they want to be paid: an existing standard bank or building society account if that account is with one of the banks or building societies that has a commercial agreement with the Post Office; a bank or building society basic account for those who are new to banking and just want to pay money in, get cash out, and perhaps pay bills automatically; and the Post Office card account, which

141
is a much simpler account just for the receipt of benefit and pension and tax credit payments. The card account is more limited than the others, but is undoubtedly the account of choice for a significant number of benefit recipients.
Good progress continues to be made on universal banking services, which are on track, as I said, for delivery in April. An investment of £0.5 billion has been required from the Government to put in place the technology platform to support universal banking. On that platform, the Post Office will be able to build a range of banking services which, we hope, will attract many new customers to their local post office, and so build for sub-postmasters, the people running post offices, and Post Office Ltd., the company running the post office network, a successful and attractive commercial future that will assure the long-term well-being of post offices. In the long term, because of the
142
Government's substantial investment in improving the technology, there is a good future, but we need to make short-term changes to ensure that the configuration of post offices in urban areas is commensurate with current business levels.
Mr. Burstow: Could the Minister ensure after today's debate that I get a reply to the points that I made in the Christmas Adjournment debate on the introduction of PIN numbers and their use when someone is ill?
Mr. Timms: I apologise for the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not received a letter yet, and shall certainly make sure that he receives one from me addressing the points that he made in that debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's official estimates are for the total of UK carbon dioxide emissions in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002; what proportion of each total is attributable to emissions from the domestic sector, as defined in the UNECE definitions of end user groups; and whether the Government has made an estimate of what those levels will be in 2003. [100878]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: The most recent UK carbon dioxide emissions data, published in March 2002 show that total UK carbon dioxide emissions were 152.1 million tonnes of carbon per year (MtC/yr) in 2000. Provisional data suggest that while emissions were around 3.4 MtC higher in 2001 than in 2000, they declined between 2001 and 2002. Final data for 2001 will be available later this month.

  Data based on the UNECE classification are available for 2000. This classification includes coal, oil and gas delivered for combustion in dwellings. The use of these fuels produced emissions of around 23 MtC/yr in 2000. In addition, approximately 18 MtC/yr were emitted from power stations, refineries and other energy industries serving the domestic sector. End user data for 2001 based on the UNECE classification will be available in April 2003.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many properties have been compulsorily purchased by the British Waterways Board in each year since 1999. [101817]

  Alun Michael
  None.

  Electronic Correspondence
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy for it to be possible for correspondence between hon. Members and Ministers to be carried out electronically. [95021]

  Alun Michael
  A great deal of progress has been made recently on tackling the significant difficulties experienced by DEFRA on dealing effectively with Member's correspondence since it's formation in June 2001 and the situation continues to improve. I have asked officials in DEFRA to look at how we might introduce an electronic correspondence system with Members. However, as our highest priority on 2W
  correspondence at the moment is to ensure that we continue to improve Departmental performance under the existing system.

  Environment Agency Inspections
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets were set by her Department for the number of inspections carried out by the Environment Agency in each year since 1997; what percentage were met; and if she will make a statement. [93708]

  Mr. Meacher
  Operational decisions are delegated to the Environment Agency. Although the Agency publishes a number of output and performance statistics, the departmental requirement upon the Agency is that they should assign resources to inspections that address environmental risk.

  The Agency makes information about its regulatory inspection activity available in its published Corporate Plans. These record the Agency's performance against its internally-generated targets. The Agency has recorded the following statistics for its planned inspections for each year ending 31 March as follows:

  Year

  Waste target

  Percentage achieved

  Percentage industries target

  Percentage achieved

  1998

  171,940

  82

  3,998

  80

  1999

  180,000

  83

  4,342

  76

  2000

  150,000

  84

  4,835

  79

  2001

  125,000

  96

  4,227

  70

  2002

  125,000

  81

  4,276

  84

  The Agency only sets targets for inspecting waste and process industries. Other inspections are not "planned" and therefore do not have targets set for them.

  Foot and Mouth
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many contracts which her Department and its agencies signed with companies to incinerate animal carcases under the over thirty months scheme have been cancelled since 1996; and if she will list the reasons for those cancellations. [101265]

  Alun Michael
  24 contracts for the incineration of over thirty month scheme animal carcases have been cancelled since 1996. The reasons for cancellation, are as follows:One contract was terminated for failure to comply with a contractual requirement to commence full operations, Eighteen contracts were terminated at the end of their term, with new contracts being introduced following a competitive tendering exercise; Five contracts terminated following the cessation of the foot and mouth emergency.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she will support the 18 applications for marketing consents for GM crops and foods under consideration by the European Commission. [100867]
  3W
  Mr. Meacher
  The United Kingdom has not yet reached an opinion on any of the 19 applications to place GMOs on the market under EU directive 2001/18. Each application is considered initially by the member state where the GMO is to be placed on the market for the first time. Once the lead member state is satisfied that the application complies with the directive it is passed to the other member states with an assessment report. The UK will consider each application on its own merits on a case-by-case basis using the criteria laid down in the EU legislation. The Government's view will be informed by the advice of its relevant independent expert groups, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, together with advice from the statutory nature conservation bodies, the Food Standards Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. If the UK has comments or reasoned objections to the placing on the market of the GMO in question these will be forwarded to the European Commission. A collective decision will then be taken by member states as to whether or not the GMO in question should be placed on the market in accordance with the provisions of the Directive.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the public debate on genetically modified organisms will be concluded. [100868]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Public Debate Steering Board is due to submit its report on the debate to Government by the end of September.

  Greenhouse Gas
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what she estimates the cut in greenhouse gas emissions in the UK between 1990 and 2010 will be, relative to the target of 12.5 per cent. [101731]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: The UK published its Climate Change Programme in 2000. It contains an integrated package of policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the UK economy. The programme estimates that these policies and measures could reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by 23 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010, and could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 19 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. A formal review of the Climate Change Programme will take place in 2004.

  Ruddy Ducks
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her written ministerial statement of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 71WS, for what reason domestic legislation was introduced to protect the ruddy duck population. [101380]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, all wild birds, as defined by Section 27(1), are protected. As ruddy ducks have been present in this country in the wild since 1953, the Department considers that they fall within this definition.
  4W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her written ministerial statement of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 71WS, on ruddy duck culling, whether those ruddy ducks culled under the control scheme will be made available for human consumption. [101621]

  Mr. Morley
  All recovered carcases of ruddy ducks are subject to post-mortem examination to determine age and sex of the animals. This information is used to help assess the consequences of control on population growth rates and productivity. The Department has no plans to make ruddy duck carcases available for human consumption.

  Secondments
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of her Department's officials have been seconded to(a) British Energy, (b) BNFL and (c) other (i) companies and (ii) NGOs involved in the nuclear sector since 1 January 2002; and on what areas of policy seconded individuals have worked. [101701]

  Alun Michael
  None.

  Tallow
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much compensation from the European Union her Department has received for the incineration of tallow produced under the over thirty months scheme since its inception. [101263]

  Alun Michael
  Compensation paid to producers under the OTMS scheme is funded approximately 70 per cent. by the EU and 30 per cent. by HM Treasury. Of the element that can be reimbursed by the EU, 80 per cent. is payable at the time animals are rendered, and the remaining 20 per cent. after the Meat and Bone Meal (MBM) and Tallow produced by the rendering process have both been incinerated.

  To date,£106,057,555 has been reimbursed following the incineration of MBM and Tallow.

  Waste Disposal
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) incinerators and (b) waste to energy plants handle waste collected by local authorities in the UK; and where they are located. [100473]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are sixteen facilities which burn municipal waste in the UK at the following locations.

  Bolton (Manchester)

  Cleveland (Billingham)

  Coventry

  Dundee

  Dudley

  Edmonton (North London)

  SELCHP (Lewisham, London)

  5W

  Tyseley (Birmingham)

  Kirklees

  Lerwick (Shetlands)

  Nottingham

  Sheffield

  Stoke

  Wolverhampton

  Isle of Wight (PDF)

  Pebsham (RDF)

  They all generate power and/or heat. The last two plants on the list burn refuse derived fuel (RDF) prepared from municipal waste.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many waste incinerators are planned by waste disposal authorities; what the capacity is of each incinerator planned; and what information she collates on the contractual arrangements for waste disposal. [99675]

  Operator

  Location

  Size/tonne/yr

  Planning status

  Permit status

  NEWLINCS Developments

  Grimsby

  56,000

  Granted

  PPC application to be submitted

  Onyx

  Portsmouth

  165,000

  Granted after appeal

  PPC application expected this year

  Onyx

  Marchwood, Southampton

  160,000

  Granted

  PPC application being determined

  Surrey Waste Management

  Capel, Surrey

  116,000

  Permit withdrawn after JR. New application expected

  PPC permit issued

  Grundons

  Slough

  400,000

  Granted

  PPC application being determined

  Onyx

  Chineham, Surrey

  110,000

  Granted

  PPC permit issued

  HLC Waste Management Services

  Neath, Port Talbot

  85,000

  Granted

  PPC permit issued

  Waste Recycling Group

  Hull

  150,000

  Application refused. Planning appeal in progress

  PPC permit issued

  Kent Enviropower

  Maidstone, Kent

  500,000

  Granted

  PPC permit being determined

  Riverside Resource Recovery

  Bexley, London

  580,000 nominal capacity

  Application submitted; public enquiry pending

  PPC application pending

  Brightstar Environmental

  Derby

  55,000 up to 222,000

  Granted

  PPC application to be submitted '03

  Onyx

  Sheffield

  225,000

  Granted

  PPC application determined

  County Environment Services

  Roche, Cornwall

  64,000

  Application submitted

  No application

  Waste Electrical Equipment
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that there are markets for waste electrical equipment diverted from landfill. [101691]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Markets already exist for many of the materials arising from waste electrical equipment and there is also a wide spread reuse and refurbishment market for specific products such as mobile telephones or washing machines. The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, due to be transposed next year, is likely to result in an increase in the availability of materials and components arising from WEEE although the additional tonnages will not be large relative to other sources of these materials.

  There will, however, be a need to encourage some new market applications where, for example, materials are contaminated or market prices are very low. The DTI will be working with Defra, WRAP (the Waste and Resources Action Programme) and business to help address this.
  6W
  Mr. Meacher
  Information on the number of waste incinerators which are subject to planning applications determined by local planning authorities is not held centrally.

  Information is available, however, from the Environment Agency on the number and status of proposed new Municipal Waste Incineration Plants in England and Wales and is set out in the following table. The data are based on information shared with the Environment Agency by prospective applicants for Pollution Prevention and Control permits which are needed before a new plant starts operations. There may be other planning applications or amendments which have been submitted to local authorities on which the Agency has not been consulted. The planning status may have changed since the data were supplied.

  My Department does not routinely collect information on contractual arrangements for waste disposal which is the responsibility of waste disposal authorities.

  Waste Minimisation and Recycling Schemes
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria will be adopted for the funding of waste minimisation and recycling schemes when changes to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme are introduced. [98526]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The precise arrangements for the administration of the new public spending programme to encourage sustainable waste management, which will replace parts of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS), are still under development but are unlikely to include a grant scheme for which criteria would need to be drawn up. Details will be set out alongside the Government's response to the Strategy Unit Report "Waste Not Want Not", which we aim to publish in the spring.

  For the period prior to 1 April 2004, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced on 3 February 2003, Official Report, columns 5–7WS, that Government would provide transitional funding for waste management and recycling projects currently supported through the LTCS beyond March 2003, for

  7W
  one year only, provided these projects meet the eligibility criteria included in the announcement and subject to any constraints resulting from EU state aid rules.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if, when drafting the secondary legislation for the Export Control Act 2002, she will extend the licensing regime for extraterritorial controls on brokered arms deals to cover all types of military and security equipment brokered by UK nationals to any destination, wherever they conduct their activities; [101338]

  (2) if she will extend the provisions in the Export Control Act 2002 to include the licensing of all brokered activities, including the provision of financial services to those involved in the arms trade. [101340]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The consultation document published on 30 January 2003 sets out the draft secondary legislation to implement the Export Control Act 2002 and explains what brokering activities are proposed to be licensed. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Final decisions on drafting the secondary legislation will not be taken until after the consultation closes on 30 April 2003 and all the responses have been carefully considered. The current consultation reflects the conclusions reached in the light of the earlier consultations.

  Bottled Water
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the number of litres of bottled(a) sparkling and (b) still water consumed in the United Kingdom in each year since 1992; and what percentage was supplied in (i) plastic, (ii) glass and (iii) other materials. [99291]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government do not themselves gather data to this level of detail. However, industry market intelligence data available to us show the following:

  UK bottled water consumption

  Litres (million)

  Still

  Sparkling

  1992

  315

  180

  1993

  330

  200

  1994

  350

  250

  1995

  440

  288

  1996

  430

  270

  1997

  495

  279

  1998

  550

  285

  1999

  696

  300

  2000

  862

  283

  2001

  990

  270

  2002

  1,080

  300

  In addition, the data available reveal that in 2002, 81 per cent. of bottled water was supplied in plastic, nine per cent. in glass and 10 per cent. in other materials.
  8W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the number of litres of chilled water cooler water supplied to homes and businesses in the United Kingdom each year since 1992; and what proportion of this water is classified as mineral water. [99292]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government do not themselves gather data to this level of detail. However, industry market intelligence data available to us show the following:

  UK water cooler water supplies

  Litres (million)

  1992

  33

  1993

  43

  1994

  57

  1995

  76

  1996

  95

  1997

  124

  1998

  153

  1999

  205

  2000

  265

  2001

  335

  2002

  390

  In addition, the data available reveal that in 2002, mineral water accounted for 27.4 per cent. of total water volume supplied.

  Broadband
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the planned 2002–03 allocation of resources to the broadband category listed in the Better Regulation Section on page 123 of the Department of Trade and Industry's Expenditure Plans 2002–03 to 2003–04, Cm 5416. [100149]

  Mr. Timms
  The £15 million listed represents the 2002–03 allocation from the £30 million UK Broadband Fund given to the Regional Development Agencies and the devolved Administrations.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures her Department is taking to promote access to broadband in rural areas. [100342]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI has established the UK Broadband Task Force to look at the aggregation of public sector broadband demand and it is envisaged that this will help extend broadband availability into rural areas. Projects funded through the £30 million UK Broadband Fund are seeking to develop broadband networks, often in rural and remote areas, and spread best practice from these throughout the country. DTI works closely with DEFRA on rural broadband issues and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what incentives the Government have offered to encourage(a) BT and (b) other suppliers to provide affordable broadband in rural communities. [100343]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's policy is not to subsidise service providers to roll out broadband but to stimulate a competitive market through fair regulation to provide consumer choice at low prices.
  9W
  We have provided the RDAs and devolved Administrations with the £30 million UK Broadband Fund to help develop broadband networks. The UK Broadband Task Force through its demand aggregation work will help broadband become increasingly available to areas not currently served by an affordable broadband service.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the economic impact on areas where people are unable to access broadband in the next three years. [100344]

  Mr. Timms
  No such assessment has been made.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what projections her Department has made of the level of access to broadband by the beginning of next year. [100345]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI does not make detailed forecasts of levels of access to broadband. Currently, broadband is available to just over 70 per cent. of the UK population and it is anticipated that this will rise substantially in the future.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of broadband coverage in Liverpool; and if she will make a statement. [101420]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government has made no specific assessment of broadband coverage in Liverpool. In the UK as a whole, 71 per cent. of the population has access to a broadband service.

  A map showing geographical availability of broadband services can be found in the UK Online Annual Report 2002, available at http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/oee.nsf/ sections/esummit-ukoannrep/$file/indexpage.htm

  Controlled Goods
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what records she holds of offsets arranged by UK companies as part of the conditions of sale of controlled goods to overseas buyers; and if the details of these offsets are publicly available; [101710]

  (2) what records she holds of arrangements entered into by UK companies to license the production overseas of controlled goods; and whether the details of these arrangements are publicly available. [101711]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since information is held only if it was contained in documents provided in support of an export licence application. Such documents are not normally publicly available.

  An export licence is not a requirement from the Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation to manufacture items outside the UK. However, where the product to be manufactured under commercial licence has a potential military use, the UK exporter might require an export licence before the goods and technology necessary for the establishment and operation of the licensed production facility can be supplied from the UK.

  Deloitte & Touche
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the matters upon which her Department and the public bodies sponsored by her Department have obtained recent advice from Deloitte & Touche. [100523]

  Ms Hewitt
  Deloitte & Touche have provided advice to the Department and its NDPBs on the following issues:

  Tax advice to various NDPBs

  Audit work for various NDPBs

  Risk management

  Management information system

  Electronic submission framework

  Administration strategy

  Wind up of the Pension scheme of Inward

  Access to Finance—SMEs

  Data Protection Act review and Performance Management Framework

  Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund

  Royal Mail including the Post Office network

  National Debtline pilot evaluation

  BNFL PPP Advisors

  Financial Systems development

  Inward Investment Overseas and in UK

  The Department's Executive Agencies will be responding directly.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 10 March 2003:
  You tabled a question on 27 February 2003 to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asking if she will list the matters upon which her Department and the public bodies sponsored by her Department have obtained recent advice from Deloitte & Touche. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Employment Tribunals Service(ETS) which is an executive agency of the DTI.
  The Employment Tribunals Service have obtained no advice from Deloitte & Touche in the calendar year 2002.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 10 March 2003:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question, tabled on 27 February 2003, about matters upon which the Department of Trade and Industry has received recent advice from Deloitte & Touche.
  The Patent Office has received no advice from Deloitte & Touche.

  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 10 March 2003:
  The Secretary for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question if she will list the matters upon which her Department and the public bodies sponsored by her Department have obtained recent advice from Deloitte & Touche.
  National Weights and Measures Laboratory have not obtained recent advice from Deloitte & Touche.
  11W
  Letter from Claire Clancy to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 10 March 2003:
  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question on behalf of Companies House, which is an Executive Agency of DTI. I can confirm that Companies House has received no recent advice from Deloitte & Touche.

  Letter from Martin Wyn Griffith to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 10 March 2003:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if she will list the matters upon which her Department and the public bodies sponsored by her Department have obtained recent advice from Deloitte & Touche.
  I am writing to confirm that the Small Business Service has not called upon the services of Deloitte & Touche in the last calendar year.

  Letter from Mike Goddard to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 10 March 2003:
  I have been asked to reply in respect of the Radiocommunications Agency to your recent Parliamentary Question about advice from Deloitte & Touche.
  This Agency has no recent contracts with Deloitte & Touche.

  Energy White Paper
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to paragraph 2.27 of the Energy White Paper, Cm 5761, what areas of liaison she expects to develop with the European Parliament to implement the proposals on emissions trading. [100079]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department takes the lead in negotiations on the EU Emissions Trading Directive. Political agreement was reached on the proposed Directive at Environment Council on 9 December 2002. The European Parliament will begin its second reading shortly. Officials from my Department have had meetings with the rapporteur for the Directive in the European Parliament and a number of Members of the Parliament to discuss the agreement reached in Council and the prospects for the Parliament's second reading. I expect further discussions with the European Parliament to take place during the second reading process. The trading scheme is due to begin in 2005. There is provision for the European Commission to bring forward proposals to amend the scheme, including extending its scope to cover other sectors and gases, before the start of the second phase in 2008. Any proposals would be subject to agreement between Council and Parliament, and I would expect these to lead to further discussions with the European Parliament.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage improvement in energy efficiency would be required to deliver from the household sector the(a) 5 MtC saving between 2002 and 2010 and (b) the 6 MtC saving between 2010 and 2020 identified in the Energy White Paper. [100783]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Assuming continuation of past trends for the growth in household demand for energy, an additional annual saving of 5 MtC by 2010 would correspond to an energy efficiency improvement of approximately 20 per cent. relative to the year 2000. This represents broadly a doubling of the average rate of improvement seen in the 1990s.
  12W
  A further 4 to 6 MtC of annual.savings by 2020 would correspond to an efficiency improvement compared with 2010 of around 18 to 22 per cent.

  HMX
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conditions were attached to the recent licence for the export of HMX to Iran; and if she will make a statement. [101298]

  Nigel Griffiths
  There were no special conditions attached to the licence since the Government is satisfied that the HMX pellets, specifically designed for cutting collars and perforating tubes, are intended for only legitimate purposes as part of the process of drilling oil and gas wells.

  Internet
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it a requirement for the internet sites of companies registered in the United Kingdom to carry the registered address of their company. [101337]

  Mr. Timms
  In June 2002, the European Commission published a proposal to update the First Company Law Directive, which sets out basic safeguards for the protection of shareholders, creditors and other third parties dealing with limited companies, to reflect technological developments since the Directive was originally agreed in 1968.

  A provision within the Commission proposal was that companies should be required to include basic statutory information, including information sufficient to identify the public file relating to the company and the location of its registered office, in electronic documents and on any company website. The UK supports this proposal as an important protection for those dealing with companies via the internet.

  It is hoped that agreement to the final text can be achieved in the near future. Early consideration of the legislative steps necessary to achieve the objectives of the Directive in the UK will then take place

  Miners' Pensions
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress in reinstating pension rises for miners sacked as a result of the 1984 industrial dispute. [101812]

  Mr. Wilson
  Following my announcement in December 2001, a scheme was launched in April 2002 to handle applications from those miners dismissed in connection with the 1984–85 strike, and not subsequently re-employed by British Coal.

  The closing date for the scheme was 31 December. The Department is currently assessing the applications which have been received, and we hope to be able to inform those who are eligible for the enhancement of their pension in the near future.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the operation of
  13W
  the renewables obligation certificate trading system; and if she will calculate the effect of every certificate holder being able to realise the full value by having the right to cash out. [101286]

  Mr. Wilson
  The renewables obligation certificate trading system is working smoothly and well. The obligation is a market based mechanism and the value of certificates is established in contracts between generators and suppliers or third party traders. The terms of these contracts are a matter for the parties concerned, renewables obligation certificates are trading at a high value at present reflecting the shortage of renewables electricity in the early years of the obligation.

  Sudan
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many UK companies are operating in the oil sector in Sudan. [101585]

  Mr. Wilson
  As the Department is not active in promoting trade with or investment in Sudan, our information on the number of UK companies operating in the oil sector in the country is limited. To our knowledge, no UK companies have any direct investment in the upstream oil sector in Sudan.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Ordinands
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what financial provision is being made for an expansion in the number of ordinands. [101632]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church of England has always made financial provision for all those who have been recommended for ordination training. In 2003 this will cost in the region of £9 million.

  Clergy Pensions
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the ability of the Church of England pension fund to meet its future liabilities. [101634]

  Mr. Bell
  Clergy pensions earned on service before 1998, for which the Commissioners are responsible, are covered more than twice over by the Commissioners' assets. Those on service from 1998 are met from the new scheme administered by the Church of England Pensions Board and funded by contributions from parishes. Actuaries provide regular advice on the financial position in both cases.

  Bishopstone Estate
  Mr. Key
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what income has been derived from the Commissioners' estate at Bishopstone, Wiltshire, in each of the past five years. [101635]
  14W
  Mr. Bell
  The income for the Bishopstone estate has fallen by just over 14 per cent. during the last five years as a result of the general downturn in agricultural incomes. The Commissioners, in common with other large estate owners, do not publish precise income figures for their estates, as this information is commercially sensitive.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Proportional Representation
  John Robertson
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what recent discussions the Commission has had with the Scottish Executive regarding proportional representation in Scotland. [101633]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that Commissioners and staff regularly meet members and staff of the Scottish Executive. However, no discussions have taken place on the subject of proportional representation in Scotland.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Youth Fitness
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Department's strategy is for improving youth fitness. [101467]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's £459 million investment over the next three years in PE and sport in schools will increase youth participation and fitness.

  Game Plan recommends that participation needs to rise to improve the fitness of the whole population. We are working with the Department of Health to deliver this.

  Access to Music
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she proposes to give greater access to(a) ballet and (b) classical music concerts to persons in social classes C1 and C2. [101468]

  Dr. Howells
  In our latest funding allocation to the Arts Council of England, we have asked the Arts Council to put strategies in place to ensure that world class art is accessible to as many people as possible. This will be reflected in the Funding Agreement which is currently being negotiated with the Arts Council. It will now be for the Arts Council to develop measures to address these issues, building on the success of initiatives like Creative Partnerships, the New Audiences Programme and the National Touring Programme.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who will fund the proposed Stonehenge visitor centre. [101469]
  15W
  Dr. Howells
  The new Stonehenge visitor centre will be primarily funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, DCMS and English Heritage. English Heritage will conduct a fund-raising campaign to cover part of the cost.

  2012 Olympics
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of sites for sailing events for a bid to hold the Olympics in London. [101470]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Arup report on the costs and benefits of staging the Olympic Games in London in 2012 considers a number of venues that will be required should we win the right to stage the games. Some of the venues, including a venue for sailing, will be located outside the London area. All the venues will be subject to further assessment if the Government decide to support a bid.

  Lottery Grants
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to simplify the application process for lottery grants; and if she will make a statement. [101471]

  Mr. Caborn
  As part of the Lottery Funding Review, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering a number of proposals further to simplify application processes and will make an announcement in the summer.

  International Sporting Events
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on bringing international sporting events to the United Kingdom. [101472]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government remains committed to attracting more international sporting events to the UK. The Department will take forward the recommendation of the Strategy Unit to create a strategy for bidding for mega events. We will consider with UK Sport how best to assist organisations at the bidding, delivery and evaluation stages of major sporting events.

  Capital of Culture
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what reports she has received from the independent expert panel who will judge Liverpool's bid to be designated European Capital of Culture. [101473]

  Dr. Howells
  The independent Advisory Panel, chaired by Sir Jeremy Isaacs, considered all 12 bids carefully and thoroughly against the criteria laid down by the ED and the Government. The panel thought that all the bids were of a very high standard but the six shortlisted bids are those which the panel considered to be the strongest overall. As my hon. Friend knows, Liverpool's bid has been shortlisted.

  The Panel will now consider the shortlisted bids in more detail. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will wait for further advice and recommendations from
  16W
  the panel before reaching any conclusions about which city should be the UK's nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008.

  Broadband
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to ensure that internet access in public libraries can be by broadband. [101461]

  Mr. Caborn
  The £100 million, Lottery funded, People's Network programme has enabled internet connections to 99 per cent. of UK libraries so far. It was a condition of the funding that broadband connections should be made, where possible. Through business plans received from library authorities, Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, estimate that around 85 per cent. of our libraries will have broadband internet connectivity of 2 mega-bytes or more. The remaining 15 per cent. of libraries are in areas where it is very difficult to install broadband currently.

TREASURY

  Translation and Interpreting Services
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Government contracts for(a) translation and (b) interpreting services are put out to tender. [101579]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not held centrally.

  Accidental Deaths (Wales)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many accidental deaths there were in Wales in each of the last 20 years. [101239]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 10 March 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many accidental deaths there were in Wales in each of the last 20 years. I am replying in his absence. (101239)
  The most recent available mortality data are for the calendar year 2001. Figures on the total number of accidental deaths for each year from 1982 to 2001 are given in the attached table.

  Number of deaths from accidents1, persons' Wales3, 1982 to 20013

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths

  1982

  803

  1983

  756

  1984

  793

  1985

  780

  1986

  820

  1987

  770

  1988

  632

  1989

  701

  1990

  690

  1991

  706

  1992

  666

  1993

  659

  1994

  678

  1995

  684

  1996

  735

  1997

  706

  17W

  Number of deaths from accidents1, persons' Wales3, 1982 to 20013

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths

  1998

  751

  1999

  720

  2000

  687

  2001

  717

  1 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (1CD-9) codes E800-E928 excluding E870-E879 for the years 1982 to 2000, and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes VOI-X59.

  2 Figures relate to deaths of people resident in Wales, rather than deaths occurring in Wales.

  3 Figures are for deaths registered in the years 1982 to 1992, and for deaths occurring in each calendar year from 1993 to 2001.

  Accounting Standards Board
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer(1) pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2003, Official Report, column 302W, on the private finance initiative, what assessment he has made of the performance of the Accountancy Standards Board; [101191]

  (2) what plans he has for his Department to issue accounting standards in relation to (a) special purpose vehicles, (b) PFI contracts and (c) other issues; [101194]

  (3) whether officials from his Department have met representatives of the Accounting Standards Board to discuss accounting standards relating to special purpose vehicles. [101192]

  Mr. Boateng
  The issue of accounting standards is a matter for the Accounting Standards Board (ASB), not for HM Treasury.

  HM Treasury does not assess the performance of the ASB. The ASB is an independent body, a company limited by guarantee, which is formally a subsidiary of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC). A full report of the ASB's activities is set out each year in the FRC's Annual Review.

  HM Treasury has observer status on the Accounting Standards Board and Treasury officials have regular contacts with the Board on a range of issues.

  Annuities
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has made to the recommendation from the Financial Services Consumer Panel that the Government should consider establishing an independent charitable trust charged with offering consumers free advice on the purchase of annuities. [101333]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Pensions Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement" (Cm 5677), made clear the Government view that compulsory independent financial advice would not be appropriate at this stage. Reforms to the market for financial advice and sales look likely to increase both consumer choice and the availability of low-cost financial advice.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will create a CAT standard annuity. [101332]

  Ruth Kelly
  There are no plans to introduce a CAT standard for annuities.

  Centre for Non-Residents
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance the Centre for Non-Residents has issued for British nationals(a) returning from countries neighbouring Iraq and (b) otherwise affected by Foreign Office advice on safety, concerning their tax liability and legal residency for financial year 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [101781]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax position of those returning to the UK from countries neighbouring Iraq on the basis of advice on safety from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is as set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on 4 March 2003,Official Report, column 919W. Staff at the Inland Revenue's Centre for Non-Residents are advising taxpayers accordingly. They have taken appropriate steps to ensure that their contact telephone number (0151 472 6196) is widely available.

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if lone parents will be able to claim the new child care tax credit for a period of time before returning to work. [101049]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The new Working Tax Credit, including the child care element, can be claimed by lone parents who are in qualifying remunerative work for at least 16 hours a week. To meet that test, the person has either to be working 16 hours a week at the date of claim or to have accepted an offer of work at that date and the work is expected to start within 7 days.

  People who are on paid maternity leave, paid adoption leave or paid paternity leave, and who met the Working Tax Credit remunerative work requirement before their leave started, will be able to claim during their leave for child care costs for the children in the family they were responsible for before the arrival of their new child.

  Child Support
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the change in Government financial support for children since 1997. [101364]

  Dawn Primarolo
  From this April, the introduction of the new tax credits, the Working Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, will provide more generous support for families with children—with more for those on lower incomes.

  The Child Tax Credit combined with Child Benefit will deliver up to £54.10 a week in support for first child, compared to £27.70 a week in April 1997.

  Under the new tax credits:
  the average gain for those currently receiving Working Families Tax Credit will be £12 per week;
  families on Income Support and income based Jobseeker's Allowance will gain an average of £11 per week;
  students and student nurses with children could gain up to £38 per week for the first child; and
  over 500,000 one-earner families with children with incomes over £30,000 a year will become newly eligible for support for their children.
  19W
  This builds on existing policies to support families financially:
  we have provided record increases in Child Benefit. From April 2003, the rate of Child Benefit for the first child will rise to £16.05, a 25 per cent. increase in real terms on the 1997 level;
  we introduced the Children's Tax Credit in April 2001, now worth up to £529 a year;
  we have introduced the Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC), which benefits over 1.3 million families, and nearly 2.7 million children;
  as part of the Working Families Tax Credit, 175,000 thousand families received help with their child care costs, more than three times the number who benefited from the old child care disregard in Family Credit. We are currently paying out £1 million a day in child care tax credit; and
  we have increased the children's allowances in Income Support and other income-related benefits, including a doubling in real terms of the rates for children under 11.

  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, how many Inland Revenue staff have been (a) dismissed and (b) prosecuted as a result of misuse of its computer systems. [101141]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information, for each of the last five years, is as follows.

  Dismissals

  Prosecutions

  1998

  1

  0

  1999

  7

  0

  2000

  8

  0

  2001

  6

  0

  2002

  3

  0

  Consumer Confidence
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent research he has commissioned into the level of consumer confidence in the UK economy; and if he will make a statement. [101274]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's Fiscal Statement and Budget Report, to be delivered on 9 April 2003, will include a full assessment of developments in the UK household sector including consumer confidence.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in corporation tax revenue resulting from the introduction of the congestion charge. [101076]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No estimate has been made of the impact of the congestion charge on corporation tax receipts. But estimating its impact would not be straightforward as companies may feel benefits as well as the more obvious costs.

  Economic Growth (EU)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's forecast is of the average economic growth rate in the EU from 2000 to 2010. [101606]
  20W
  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: In line with the practice of previous Governments, we do not publish growth forecasts for the EU. Growth forecasts for the G7 aggregate are published in the Pre-Budget and Budget Reports.

  Euro
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent(a) discussions he has had with and (b) representations he has received from (i) the Bank of England, (ii) representatives of business and (iii) employees representatives on the assessment of the five tests for euro entry. [101863]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 104–05W.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the(a) terms of reference and (b) guidance issued to the review of the implications for UK statistics of joining the euro. [101275]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor has asked Christopher Allsopp to undertake a wide-ranging review of the informational and statistical requirements for monetary and wider economic policy-making, following the end of his term as a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.

  The terms of reference and other details of the review were published in a press notice on 27 February 2003, available on the Treasury's website: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  Economic Reform (EU)
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent proposals he has made to the European Union on increasing the rate of its economic reform. [101864]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's proposals for increasing the rate of EU economic reform are set out in "Meeting the Challenge; Economic Reform in Europe", published on 17 February 2003.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 217W, on Lisbon and Stockholm objectives, if he will (a) make a statement and (b) publish a document listing progress towards each objective listed in Appendix A of the European Economic Reform White Paper 2002. [102048]

  Ruth Kelly
  Progress towards the Lisbon and Stockholm objectives is described in the progress report on European economic reform, 'Meeting the Challenge; Economic Reform in Europe', and in 'Structural Indicators of European Economic Reform; Measuring Europe's Progress', both published on 17 February 2003.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 30W, whether the FSA will

  21W
  continue the advertisement complaints procedure to its conclusion in cases in which the offending advert has been removed. [101396]

  Ruth Kelly
  Decisions about the action to take in response to complaints about advertisements, and when and how to bring that action to a conclusion, are a matter for the FSA, taking into account the circumstances of each case.

  Fraud
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions for tax fraud the Inland Revenue's special compliance office has pursued in each year since 1997; and how many of these prosecutions resulted in convictions. [102005]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Statistics on prosecutions and convictions by the Inland Revenue are published each year in their Annual Reports, copies of which are available in the House Library.

  House Price Inflation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment HM Treasury has made regarding the level of house price inflation in the UK economy. [101698]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's Fiscal Statement and Budget report to be delivered on 9 April will include an assessment of recent house price developments.

  Household Debt
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to reduce the level of household debt as a percentage of disposable income in the UK. [101053]

  Ruth Kelly
  Within a sound financial framework, the Government believe that households are best placed to decide on the level of debt that they should hold. Growth in household debt reflects strong fundamentals with a robust labour market, low interest rates and strong gains in housing wealth.

  Inflation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the inflation rate was for(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector in each of the last 12 months. [101280]

  Ruth Kelly
  Public and private sector inflation, as measured by the implied Government and private consumption deflators respectively, are not available on a monthly basis as they are derived from quarterly nominal and real consumption data. The latest data were published by the Office for National Statistics in the First Release on UK output, income and expenditure for the fourth quarter of 2002 on 26 February 2003.

  Insurance Premiums
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of(a) employers and (b) employees concerning the cost of insurance premiums. [101700]
  22W
  Ruth Kelly
  Officials from HM Treasury and other Government Departments have meetings with a wide range of representative groups on issues related to insurance, including the cost of insurance premiums.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what revenue has been received from Insurance Premium Tax in each year since 1997; [101704]

  (2) what plans he has to provide business with a rebate from Insurance Premium Tax revenues. [102117]

  Ruth Kelly
  The total amount of insurance premium tax collected in the UK can be found on the HM Customs and Excise website: www.hmce.gov.uk/about/ reports/ann-report/n2.pdf.

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

  Labour Statistics (Wales)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people aged 16 to 21 there were in low rates of pay in Wales for each of the last 20 years; [101241]

  (2) how many people aged 16 to 21 were unemployed in Wales in each of the last 20 years. [101243]

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

  Letter from Mr. Colin Mowl to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 10 March 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about unemployment and low pay rates in Wales. I am replying in his absence. (100241, 100243)
  The attached table gives estimates of the number of unemployed people aged 16 to 21 in Wales for the three month periods ending May of each year from 1984 to 2002. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey and are not seasonally adjusted. This information is not available on a consistent basis for 1983.
  For years from 1998, ONS has published estimates of the numbers of people paid below the National Minimum Wage on the basis of sample survey data. However, for the group requested, sample numbers are too small to provide a reliable estimate.

  Unemployed people aged 16–21 in Wales; Spring (March to May) 1984 to 2002

  Thousand, not seasonally adjusted

  March to May

  1984

  49

  1985

  45

  1986

  47

  1987

  35

  1988

  31

  1989

  23

  1990

  25

  1991

  28

  1992

  23

  1993

  33

  1994

  22

  1995

  23

  1996

  23

  1997

  28

  1998

  21

  1999

  26

  2000

  21

  2001

  24

  2002

  23

  23W
  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates are Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA) and have not been adjusted to take account of the Census 2001 results.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Maastricht Criteria (Budget Deficits)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the prospects for the United Kingdom meeting the Maastricht criteria relating to budget deficits. [101645]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 2.61 of the 2002 pre-Budget report. A copy can be found in the Library.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the increase in spending on the national health service announced in the Budget Statement 2002 in relation to(a) productivity, (b) efficiency and (c) savings due to economies of scale. [101278]

  Mr. Boateng
  The health settlement announced in the 2002 Budget Statement, which covers the period from 2003–04 to 2007–08, is linked to a programme of reform to deliver the NHS Plan. Progress against this will be assessed and reported regularly by the Department of Health in their annual Departmental Report and in their Autumn Performance Report, both of which are available on the Department of Health website.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2003,Official Report, column 769W, on national insurance contributions, what assessment his Department has made in recent economic forecasts of the effect that the increase in national insurance in April will have on (a) disposable income, (b) consumer spending as a percentage of GDP, (c) personal borrowing levels and (d) the savings ratio. [101911]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 28 February 2003,Official Report, column 769W.

  Pensions
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has made to the European Commission on its inquiry into whether UK pensions tax rules meet EC requirements. [101362]

  Ruth Kelly
  In common with all other member states, the UK was asked to provide details of existing tax rules for pension schemes, and whether any changes to those rules were contemplated. The response was a factual description of the reliefs and tax treatment currently available. Reference was also made to the pensions simplification review then under way.

  Personal Sector Wealth
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of total personal sector wealth was owned by the wealthiest half of the adult population in each year since 1997. [102112]

  Ruth Kelly
  The available information which relates to the distribution of UK marketable wealth, including that owned by the wealthiest half of the adult population, is given in Table 13.5 of Inland Revenue Statistics 2003 which is available at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/ index.htm.

  Public Sector Comparators
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish Treasury investment appraisal guidance used to construct Public Sector Comparators; and if he will make a statement. [101759]

  Mr. Boateng
  Guidance on Public Sector Comparators is set out in Treasury Taskforce Technical Note 5, "How to Construct a Public Sector Comparator".

  Work is currently under way to assess how guidance might be updated to reflect recent changes in the 2002 Green Book.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the contribution Public Service Agreements will make to the Government's sustainable development strategy. [101506]

  Mr. Boateng
  Public Service Agreements make a significant contribution to the delivery of the Government's sustainable development strategy. The Spending Review 2002 required each Department with its own Public Service Agreement to produce a Sustainable Development Report, explaining the sustainable development implications of its policy priorities. Further information on the specific contribution Public Service Agreements make can be found in the 2002 Spending Review White Paper and in the Government 2002 Annual Report on sustainable development, "Achieving a Better Quality of Life".

  Revenue Qualifying Regimes
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 33W, on revenue qualifying regimes, whether changes to the qualifying regime will be subject to an assessment of the likely impact to those on low incomes. [101810]

  Ruth Kelly
  I confirm that in considering changes to the qualifying policy regime the Government will assess the likely impact of those changes on those on low incomes.

  Secondments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 220W, on secondments, from

  25W
  which private accounting firms the three people are seconded; how long the secondment is of each; and what their responsibilities are. [102046]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  Deloitte Touche—24.9.01–23.09.03

  Duties: General Business Taxation (including corporation tax, capital gains for companies, tax issues for multinational businesses, taxation of insurance, offshore funds and other collective investment schemes, rural tax issues and film tax relief).

  Arthur Andersen—2.1.02–30.6.03

  Duties: Team Leader responsible for Public Enterprise Partnerships

  PKF—-22.7.02–21.7.04

  Duties: Accountancy advice. Post-Enron work and Corporate Governance issues.

  Suicides (Wales)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides of those aged 15 to 24 there were in Wales in each of the last 20 years. [101244]

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

  Letter from Mr. Colin Mowl to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 10 March 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many suicides have been recorded in each of the last 20 years for those aged 15 to 24 in Wales. I am replying in his absence. (101244)
  The most recent available mortality data are for the calendar year 2001. Figures for each year from 1982 to 2001 are given in the attached table.

  Number of deaths from suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted1, persons aged 15 to 24, Wales2,1982 to 20013

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths

  1982

  31

  1983

  36

  1984

  28

  1985

  26

  1986

  31

  1987

  40

  1988

  35

  1989

  31

  1990

  33

  1991

  42

  1992

  42

  1993

  40

  1994

  44

  1995

  46

  1996

  40

  1997

  53

  1998

  47

  1999

  50

  2000

  35

  2001

  41

  1 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (1CD-9) codes E950-E959 and E980-E989 excluding E988.8for the years 1982 to 2000, and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (1 CD-10)codes X60-X84 and Y10-Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending,

  26W
  2Figures relate to deaths of people resident in Wales, rather than deaths occurring in Wales

  3Figures are for deaths registered in the years 1982 to 1992, and for deaths occurring in each calendar year from 1993 to 2001.

  Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 604W, how much each mailshot to potential new tax credit claimants has cost. [100764]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The answer I gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) referred to a reminder mailing in November and a further mailing in February. The approximate costs for these mailings are as follows:

  £

  Date

  Print and production

  Postage

  November

  299,000

  588,000

  February

  70,000

  364,000

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Northampton, South will be entitled to the new Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit; and of these, how many (i) have applied for them and (ii) have returned their claim form. [100788]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Six million families in the United Kingdom are expected to benefit from the new tax credits in 2003–04, including 1.3 million families with children who receive Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance and who will receive the additional support through those benefits until they move into the Child Tax Credit itself in 2004. By the end of February we had already received over three million claims. Numbers for Northampton South are not available.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the rate of prosecution for tax evasion. [102012]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Revenue tackle fraud, error and avoidance using civil investigation and settlement, and applying financial penalties where appropriate. The Revenue also operates a selective prosecution policy intended to bolster the overall enforcement strategy. The focus is on cases where prosecution will do the most to promote compliance by deterring tax, contribution and tax credit fraud.

  Statistics on prosecutions and convictions by the Inland Revenue are published each year in their Annual Reports, copies of which are available in the House Library.

  Tax Revenues
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 222W, on tax revenue forecasts, what estimate he has made of the effect on public sector

  27W
  net borrowing (a) this year and (b) next year if GDP growth were 1 per cent. lower than assumed over the coming year. [102047]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph B17 of the 2002 Pre-Budget Report (Cm 5664), where the estimates are set out.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of lower than forecast manufacturing growth on total tax revenues; [102118]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the strength of the growth of tax revenues. [102107]

  Mr. Boateng
  Consistent with the Code for Fiscal Stability, projections for the public finances, including tax revenues, will be set out in the Budget to be presented to the House on 9 April 2003.

  Teenage Pregnancy (Wales)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many births there were to girls conceiving under the age of 16 in Wales for each of the last 20 years. [101240]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 10 March 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many births there were to girls conceiving under the age of 16 in Wales for each of the last 20 years. 1 am replying in his absence. (101240)
  The latest available figures are for 2001. The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Births to mothers conceiving below 16 years of age, Wales 1982–20011

  Number

  Year2

  Births3

  1982

  273

  1983

  303

  1984

  288

  1985

  308

  1986

  287

  1987

  259

  1988

  275

  1989

  241

  1990

  293

  1991

  231

  1992

  253

  1993

  267

  1994

  276

  1995

  330

  1996

  360

  1997

  318

  1998

  322

  1999

  282

  2000

  265

  2001(P)

  235

  1 Figures are for mothers who were usually resident in Wales at the time of birth.

  2 Age at conception was estimated before 1987 using complete months, and from 1987 onwards using exact dates.

  3 Includes live births and stillbirths.

  (P)Provisional data.

  28W

  Voluntary Service (Young People)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what funding he is making available to encourage gap year voluntary service by young people. [102010]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has allocated £5 million of the Spending Review 2002 settlement for the Young Volunteer Challenge scheme to promote volunteering for 18–19 year olds from lower-income backgrounds. Through this scheme, young people will receive a weekly allowance of £45 and a lump sum end of experience award of £750 to support them during a period of full-time voluntary activity.

  War Chest
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been allocated, by continent, by HM Treasury for the global war on terror since 11 September 2001. [101279]

  Mr. Boateng
  Such information is not kept in the format requested. Apart from funds for military operations in Afghanistan, which totalled £618 million from 2001 to 2003, and £1.75 billion set aside this year to cover the costs of military and overseas operations so that the UK can continue to play a leading role in the global war against terror, the Treasury does not hold information on all departmental expenditure on counter terrorism and UK resilience measures since 11 September 2001. The Government are committed to ensuring that UK domestic security is given a high priority and the strengthening of the UK's defences against the threats posed by international terrorism was a key theme of last year's Spending Review. Consequently, departments have prioritised measures for improving the UK's resilience to, and capability to deal with, a terrorist attack. UK resilience arrangements have been reviewed and planning has been mainstreamed as a routine activity.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arts Council Steering Group
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who the members of the Steering Group for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland's research project on the Arts of Irish and Ulster-Scots are; and what organisations they represent. [100445]

  Angela Smith
  The current members of the Steering Group are as follows:

  Roisin McDonough

  Arts Council of NI

  Noirin McKinney

  Arts Council of NI

  Nick Livingston

  Arts Council of NI

  Aodan Mac Poilin

  lontaobhas Ultach/ Ultach Trust

  Deirdre Davitt

  Foras na Gaeilge

  George Holmes

  Tha Boord o Ulster Scotch

  Maurna Crozier

  NI Community Relations Council; seconded to DCAL at the time of the setting up of the Steering Group

  Royal Victoria Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Royal Victoria Hospital is retaining body parts from recent autopsies. [101940]

  Mr. Browne
  The Royal Victoria Hospital has only retained body parts from recent post mortem examinations with the valid consent in writing of the next of kin or closest living relative.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many post mortems had been performed at the Royal Victoria Hospital between the setting up of the numbered post mortem system and 31December 2002, broken down by(a) coroners and (b) hospital post mortems. [101936]

  Mr. Browne
  There was a total of 49,956 post mortems carried out in the period between the commencement of the current post mortem numbering system and 31 December 2002. It is not possible to provide further information in the form requested, as it is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Burns Report
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the report by Professor Gardiner on the practical issues of implementation of the Burns Report, commissioned by the Educational Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, will be published. [99339]

  Jane Kennedy
  As I explained to the hon. Gentleman in my reply on 13 February 2003 Official Report, column 934W, it is my understanding that this report cannot be made publicly available until the Assembly Education Committee has had the opportunity to consider and approve it.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated impact on the environment the European Union Working Time Directive will have in respect of carbon dioxide emissions from heavy goods vehicles in Northern Ireland; and if he will seek derogation from this Directive on behalf of the quarrying and construction industries. [101738]

  Jane Kennedy
  The European Working Time Directives are designed to protect the health and safety of people at work.

  I have not assessed the impact of the Directives on the environment and I do not propose to seek a derogation along the lines suggested.

  Columba Initiative
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many annual reports the Columba Initiative have published; and if he will place them in the Library. [100442]

  Angela Smith
  The Columba Initative registered as a company limited by guarantee in April 2002. Its first annual report is expected to be published in the summer of this year on completion of annual audited accounts. The annual report and accounts will be placed in the Library.

  Credit Strategy
  Mr Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with counterparts in Edinburgh, Cardiff and London regarding the development of a pan-UK credit strategy, particularly with respect to a credit transcript system. [100433]

  Jane Kennedy
  The introduction of a unit based curriculum with credit attached remains a major aim of the Department for Employment and Learning's (DEL) lifelong learning strategy. Officials are working with the relevant Departments in England, Scotland and ales to try to secure complementarity across the UK.

  In 1999 DEL commissioned a three year, Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation and Transfer System (NICATS) implementation project, to develop the specifications for a single credit framework which could be used to support the operation of a credit accumulation and transfer system in NI including a template for a standardised NICATS credit transcript to provide a summary of each learner's achievement.

  DEL has tasked the NI Council for the curriculum, examination and assessment (CCEA), as the regulatory authority for Northern Ireland, to provide advice on the next phase of NICATS taking account of funding implications, added value and work of credit systems in the rest of the UK.

  Hospital Post-Mortems
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether(a) parents and (b) relatives of deceased persons are entitled to refuse a hospital postmortem. [101938]

  Mr. Browne
  Hospital post mortems are only carried out with the consent of the parents, legal guardian or relative of the deceased, as appropriate.

  Organ, Block and Slide Retention
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether(a) organs, (b) blocks and (c) slides (i) are and (ii) have been retained at (A) Moyle Hospital, Lame, (B) Omagh Hospital, (C) Foster Green Hospital, Belfast, (D) Ulster Hospital, Dundonald, (E) Antrim Hospital, (F) Erne Hospital, Enniskillen, (G) Daisy Hill Hospital, Newry, (H) Coleraine Hospital, (I) Ards Hospital, Newtownards, (J) Wavenay Hospital, Ballymena, (K) Mid Ulster Hospital and (L) Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast. [101939]

  Mr. Browne
  The Royal Group of Hospitals has previously retained and continues to retain organs, blocks and slides. Antrim Area Hospital has previously retained organs, blocks and slides and currently retains blocks and slides. The Ulster Hospital has previously retained, and continues to retain, organs. The Waveney Hospital previously retained organs, blocks and slides. This has ceased and all pathology has moved to Antrim Area Hospital.

  The other hospitals listed have never had the on-site laboratory facilities to produce blocks and slides and at the time of the Chief Medical Officer's survey in May 2001 had no retained organs. Beyond that, the information is not available in the format requested.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland Band
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Northern Ireland charitable organisations that have benefited from a performance from the PSNI Band. [101609]

  Jane Kennedy
  The names of the charitable organisations who have benefited from a performance of the PSNI Band are not available. In 2002, the band played at six functions affiliated to registered charities and fourteen other fund raising functions for various community organisations.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many, and what proportion, of Police Service of Northern Ireland band members have been returned to normal policing duties. [101610]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI Band will be stood down on 31 March 2003. When the decision to stand down the band was taken 32 officers were serving with the band. On 1 April 2003, 30 police officers will be returned to duties at District Command Units, 1 officer will take up duties in Crime department and 1 officer has resigned.

  Policing Partnerships
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people applied to be members of the Belfast District Policing Partnership; and how many were deemed to be appointable candidates. [100440]

  Jane Kennedy
  203 people applied to be members of the Belfast District Policing Partnerships and of those, 63 were deemed to be appointable candidates.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have applied to be members of the District Policing Partnerships in Northern Ireland; and how many were deemed to be appointable candidates. [100435]

  Jane Kennedy
  1,511 applications have been received for membership of District Policing Partnerships and of those, 737 were deemed appointable candidates.

  Resettlement Grants
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been paid in resettlement grants to prisoners released under the early release scheme in Northern Ireland since the scheme began; and if he will make a statement. [100616]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service has made payments of £44.5k to organisations or individuals assisting with the resettlement of prisoners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Indian Ocean Territories
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many joint financing arrangements, at what estimated budgetary cost, have been made since 1997 with the United 32W
  States for (a) site preparation, (b) construction, (c) maintenance and (d) operation of facilities on British Indian Ocean Territories. [100886]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the islands in the British Indian Ocean Territories that have buildings and facilities used or set aside for future use by the United States or UK for defence purposes. [100894]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Diego Garcia.

  Charlotte Wilson
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Burundi since the killing of British aid worker Charlotte Wilson in December 2000. [98985]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since the tragic death of Charlotte Wilson we have made numerous representations to the Burundi authorities. As soon as our Embassy in Kigali was made aware of her killing, we made contact with the Burundi authorities, urging them to bring the perpetrators to justice. They assured us that they would do all they could to apprehend Charlotte's killers. The Burundi Foreign Ministry has confirmed this in writing.

  Since that time, our Ambassador in Kigali and other Embassy staff have frequently raised Charlotte Wilson's case with the Burundi authorities and will continue to do so. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Charlotte Wilson with Burundi President Pierre Buyoya and Minister of Justice, Fulgence Bakana, during his visit to Burundi in January 2002. More recently, on 10 February 2003, my noble Friend Baroness Amos raised Charlotte's case with the Burundi Foreign Minister, Therence Sinunguruza, during his visit to London. We also arranged for Charlotte's mother to meet the Foreign Minister on the same day.

  We have offered assistance to the Burundi authorities from the Metropolitan police, should they require it. We continue to press for a full investigation and for the perpetrators to be brought to justice.

  Congo
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of progress towards the ratification of the all inclusive agreement signed in December 2002 between the participants of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue; and if he will make a statement. [101047]

  Mr. Rammell
  Three issues are blocking the establishment of the transitional national government (TNG) provided for in the Global Accord (signed in Pretoria on 17 December 2002):

  (i) Agreeing the constitution for the TNG;

  (ii) Provision of security in Kinshasa for the TNG and its institutions;

  (iii) Formation of a new national army.

  33W
  Talks aimed at resolving these issues started in Pretoria on 25 February under the mediation of the UN Secretary General's Special Representative and the Government of South Africa. Our diplomatic staff in Kinshasa and Pretoria are monitoring the talks and remain on hand to support the mediation as required.

  Detention
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on paragraph 18 of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention opinion 16/2002; and what additional information his Department has sought from the authorities in Dubai. [99941]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in paragraph 18 of its opinion 16/2002 of 29 November 2002, comes to the conclusion that"with regard to the present period of detention, dating from 13 December 1999, the Working Group considers that it does not have sufficient information to give an opinion on whether or not the continued detention is of an arbitrary nature, which would involve interpreting a domestic regulation on the granting of early release".

  We have previously advised Mr. Atkinson in Dubai that a local lawyer would be best placed to address the issue of the application and interpretation of the laws governing his imprisonment. Early last year, our embassy supplied Mr. Atkinson's UK based lawyer with a list of Dubai lawyers. We will continue to offer Mr. Atkinson all the assistance we properly can.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation has taken place with the United States concerning the use of construction labourers on Diego Garcia since 1997; and how many workers from Mauritius and the Seychelles have been employed on such construction projects. [100887]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Matters relating to the workers employed on Diego Garcia by the US contractors are regularly discussed between the United Kingdom and United States authorities at all levels. The number of workers fluctuates from year to year and within any given year. Currently, about 40 Mauritian workers are employed by US contractors on Diego Garcia. No workers have been engaged from the Seychelles for many years.

  Diplomatic Corps
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the range of salary scales for Her Majesty's ambassadors and high commissioners. [100857]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Her Majesty's Ambassadors and High Commissioners abroad are appointed from the following Foreign & Commonwealth Office grades. The current salary ranges for these grades are shown in brackets.
  34W

  Current Salary Ranges

  (£)

  D6

  34,544 to 776

  D7

  42,640 to 58,182

  SMS

  51,250 to 145,550

  Grade 1 Ambassadors

  115,000 to 189,000

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how many hours in each month since their initial detention each of the UK citizens held at Guantanamo Bay has undergone interrogation. [100888]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are in US detention. We do not know the length of time each detainee has been interrogated.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the legal authority for the detention of UK citizens at Guantanamo Bay. [100890]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The question of the status of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay under international humanitarian law is complex and has to be considered in the light of the facts relating to each individual detainee. We have made clear our position that, whatever their status, the detainees are entitled to humane treatment, and, if prosecuted, a fair trial.

  HMS Mauritius
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK personnel are stationed at HMS Mauritius; and at what annual cost in the last five years. [100892]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  HMS Mauritius was a Royal Navy Communications Centre in Mauritius. It was established under an Agreement on Mutual Defence and Assistance that came into force on 12 March 1968 when Mauritius became independent. HMS Mauritius closed at the end of March 1976 and all personnel were withdrawn.

  Iran
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press European Union partners to introduce a censure resolution on human rights abuses in Iran at the next session of the UN Human Rights Commission. [100942]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All EU partners are concerned about the human rights situation in Iran and we are currently consulting on how to encourage positive change. A resolution is one of a number of possibilities, which are being discussed.

  Ituri Pacification Commission
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has made to the Governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda to ensure the effectiveness of the Ituri Pacification
  35W
  Commission; and if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Ituri province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [101027]

  Mr. Rammell
  The humanitarian situation in Ituri (north-eastern DRC) remains serious. We have urged all Congolese parties and the Governments of Rwanda and Uganda to play their part in stabilising the situation, and to give their full support to the lturi Pacification Commission. But we believe that the real key to bringing stability to the region is the formation of a transitional national government in Kinshasa.

  We are working closely with our partners on the UN Security Council and at the EU to maintain pressure on the parties to address the situation in Ituri, and to take forward the formation of the transitional national government.

  Myanmar
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on trade sanctions against the Government of Myanmar; and if he will make a statement. [101383]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We do not encourage trade or investment in Burma. We offer no assistance at all to companies wishing to pursue trade or investment with Burma. Companies asking for our advice are told of our policy, the regime's appalling human rights record and its economic mismanagement.

  Due to a combination of these factors, there is virtually no new foreign investment in Burma and Burma's international trade is falling.

  Rwanda
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received regarding the arrest of the Rwandan journalist Ismail Mbonigaba; and if he will make a statement. [101026]

  Mr. Rammell
  We received a report in January that Ismail Mbonigaba (editor of the Rwandan newspaper Umuseso) had been arrested for allegedly inciting "divisionism and discrimination" through an article and cartoon which appeared in his paper. On 27 February the Court of Appeal released Mr. Mbonigaba provisionally pending a further hearing. No date has yet been set for this hearing.

  We will continue to monitor events closely and to urge the Government of Rwanda to respect the principle of freedom of the press and free speech. I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and my noble Friend Baroness Amos discussed this with President Kagame in January.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100951]
  36W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Smoking is only allowed in designated smoking areas in Foreign and Commonwealth Office buildings in the UK. The same principle is applied in overseas missions where feasible.

  Terrorist Incidents
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of terrorist incidents which have taken place in each of the past five years. [102085]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not keep this kind of statistical record of world-wide terrorist incidents. A number of academic institutions compile such statistics. Another useful reference is the United States Department of State's Annual Report on "Patterns of Global Terrorism".

  UN Resolutions
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the British Government has to sponsor a resolution against(a) Libya, (b) Zimbabwe and (c) Iraq at the UN Commission on Human Rights Session in Geneva, Switzerland, on 17 March; and if he will make a statement. [101802]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK is committed to playing an active role in the forthcoming meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The UK does not table resolutions at CHR on a national basis. We are currently discussing with EU partners which resolutions the EU will sponsor at this year's CHR. Decisions on EU initiatives at CHR are taken by consensus. At last year's CHR, the EU tabled resolutions on Zimbabwe and Iraq and it is likely the EU will do so again this year. We are discussing with EU partners whether to make reference to Libya at this year's CHR.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Turkey
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid has been provided by the Government to Turkey to assist in dealing with Kurdish refugees from Iraq in the last 10 years. [101144]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not provided assistance to the Government of Turkey to assist with Kurdish refugees. UNHCR, for whom we provide annual core funding, has a regional programme that includes some support to Kurdish refugees in Turkey.

  Afghanistan
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of civilian deaths which occurred(a) directly and (b) indirectly as a result of military action in Afghanistan since 11 September 2001. [101023]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.
  37W
  It is impossible to know for certain how many casualties, either military or civilian, there have been as a result of coalition action in Afghanistan. The Taliban's claims of casualties cannot be taken at face value.

  Military action inevitably carries risks, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear in the House, our targeting and weapons selection processes are rigorous. Every effort is made to avoid civilian casualties.

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by her Department; what their scope was; when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102051]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Contingency Reserve
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the Department's contingency reserve for this financial year has not been spent. [101999]

  Clare Short
  DFID's contingency reserve for 2002–03 has been fully committed, mainly to strengthen our response to emergencies in Africa and the Palestinian territories.

  Developing Countries (Water Supplies)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with other EU governments about(a) the management of water and (b) the control of water supplies in developing countries; and if she will make a statement. [101872]

  Clare Short
  My department is currently working with other EU member states on a joint water initiative, which is addressing these issues.

  The European Commission and the EU Member States set up the water initiative in order to respond to the demand of the partners in developing countries and create a platform for better co-ordination of water related development aid and for new partnerships.

  Although involved in many aspects of the initiative, my department is leading the financing component, working on management and control issues through a multi-stakeholder process. The finance working group is currently developing a set of guiding principles that recognises the important contribution of the many stakeholders to the provision and management of water and sanitation services, and the need for effective governance in the water and sanitation sector.

  Israel
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from NGOs regarding access to water supply in Jayyous. [101200]
  38W
  Clare Short
  I have not received any representations from NGOs regarding access to water supply in Jayyous.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to(a) the Israeli authorities and (b) the United Nations regarding (i) the potential separation of Jayyous from its water supply and (ii) alternative water supply options. [101204]

  Clare Short
  The route of the security fence and its effects on the Palestinian people are unacceptable. The route taken will have a severe impact on Palestinian water rights and access to water resources in Jayyous and other towns and villages near the Green Line. We have made representations at the highest level, both bilaterally and through the EU, to the Government of Israel.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department has given to charitable work and projects in the Occupied Territories that have been, or may be, demolished by the Israeli authorities to make way for the concrete separation wall. [101205]

  Clare Short
  The security fence has already severely disrupted the lives of many Palestinians, separating them from their land, water and communities. British funded development projects have not so far been affected, but we will continue to monitor closely this aspect, and the situation more generally.

  Small Arms
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the conference on small arms proliferation attended by representatives of her Department on 14 to 15 January. [101365]

  Clare Short
  On 14 and 15 January a conference on Strengthening Export Controls of Small Arms and Light Weapons: Implementing the UN Programme of Action was held at Lancaster House. The Conference was organised by my Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence, and was funded from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool. I gave the opening address to delegates. The Conference brought together representatives of 49 States that produce or trade small arms and light weapons, as well as representatives of international and non-governmental organisations, in order to discuss strengthening controls on exports and transfers of small arms and light weapons (SALW).

  Some consensus on strengthening export controls had been achieved during the 2001 UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its aspects, and the objective of the Lancaster House conference was to make further progress on this issue. Participants discussed better implementation and strengthening of existing export controls and controlling brokers and trafficking of SALW. The Conference identified those areas where there is now considerable consensus and those requiring further work. A full report of the Conference will be published shortly.
  39W
  We will use the further opportunity to achieve greater consensus on strengthening export controls in the margins of the UN Biennial Meeting of States in July 2003.

  Sudan
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Sudanese Government in relation to aid available to their internally displaced persons in Southern Sudan. [101591]

  Clare Short
  We have not discussed with the Sudanese Government aid available to internally displaced persons (IDPs) in southern Sudan; however, under the auspices of OCHA, a Displaced Persons Task Force (with representatives from UNDP, UNICEF, IOM and others) has been established to take forward planning for IDP return in the event of peace. The Task Force will also to assist the Sudanese Government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army in planning around IDP issues and establishing an IDP policy framework.

  With some four million IDPs, Sudan has largest IDP population in the world. We continue to be deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, particularly in the south. In the decade since 1991 Britain has pledged over £220 million to help with humanitarian crises in Sudan. This financial year, we have committed approximately £10 million to support life-saving humanitarian work, education, peace building activities (including support for the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development Secretariat and monitors for the Nuba Mountains ceasefire), and anti-slavery work.

  Trade Liberalisation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the likely impact on developing countries of trade liberalisation, with particular reference to the control of water supplies. [101873]

  Clare Short
  The impact on developing countries of trade liberalisation depends on a variety of factors such as the nature and extent of initial trade distortions, whether trade liberalisation is comprehensive or limited to a few sectors, and whether other countries also open up their markets. As a result, estimates of impact vary widely. One assessment by the World Bank indicates that comprehensive multilateral trade liberalisation backed up with increased aid for trade related infrastructure (e.g. roads and ports) could lift an additional 300 million people out of poverty by 2015.

  The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) provides the framework for multilateral (WTO) negotiations between countries on the liberalisation of trade in services, including water supply. The GATS is a bottom-up agreement, which means that countries themselves decide whether—and
  40W
  when—to open up their service sectors to foreign competition. Nor does GATS require or encourage countries to privatise public services. Should WTO members choose to involve the private sector, there is nothing under the GATS to prevent or pressure them into a specific public or private service delivery model.

  My Department's priority is to make sure the poor benefit from improved water and sanitation services, through effective regulation and appropriate tariff structures, including subsidies for the poorest, if required. In all water and sanitation services, whether municipalities chose to involve the private sector or not, the principle of cost recovery is important and must be recognised as central to sustainability. Effective institutions that are accountable, representative and transparent are essential to manage and regulate the water sector.

  Wildlife and Poverty Study
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about her Department's Wildlife and Poverty Study. [101363]

  Clare Short
  My Department endorses the recently published DFID Wildlife and Poverty Study. The study is available on the DFID website at www.dfid.gov.uk.

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Information
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the trends in spending on public information by(a) the UK Government and (b) the European Union in the last five years. [101088]

  Mr. Alexander
  The UK Government have spent the following on advertising in the last five years.

  £000s

  Cash expenditure

  Prices in real terms1

  1997–98

  60, 000

  65,800

  1998–99

  106,000

  110, 600

  1999–2000

  113, 500

  114,100

  2000–01

  192,400

  186,600

  2001–02

  162, 600

  162,600

  1 In real terms at 2001–02 prices based on advertising media inflation rates.

  Source:

  COI.

  Advertising is used by Departments when they judge it is the most cost effective way of delivering the publicity necessary to support a policy or proposal. These figures represent the advertising commissioned on behalf of Departments and Agencies by the Central Office of Information. The EC budget finances a variety of EU information programmes, the funding amounts for which are decided on an annual basis by the budgetary authority.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken against United Kingdom companies which assisted Iraq in providing equipment and material in support of weapons of mass destruction. [100113]

  The Prime Minister
  Following the inquiry led by Sir Richard Scott (now Lord Scott of Foscote), the Government has introduced a number of legislative and non-legislative measures to improve the UK export control regime, culminating in the Export Control Act of 2002.

  A number of UK companies and individuals were prosecuted for the supply of goods to Iraq in contravention of legislation in force at the time. The prosecutions were subsequently scrutinised by Lord Scott as part of his inquiry.

  Any further allegations that there have been breaches of export controls in respect of exports to Iraq would require careful examination by HM Customs and Excise, which is responsible for the enforcement of UK export controls.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if, in the event of conflict with Iraq, he will issue a statement of the war aims of the United Kingdom, with particular reference to the post-war government of Iraq. [101408]

  The Prime Minister
  No decision to launch military action against Iraq has been taken. Our policy objectives were set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his written statement of 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 4WS.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to publish the actions which the Government of Iraq must take in order to avoid conflict with Her Majesty's forces, and the maximum length of time in which those actions must be completed; and if he will make a statement. [101502]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to answers I gave at Prime Minister's questions on 5 March 2003,Official Report, columns 808–17.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with other governments about the costs of(a) a conflict in Iraq and (b) the subsequent occupation of the country. [101636]

  The Prime Minister
  No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq. I regularly discuss all aspects of our Iraq policy with other governments.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister what records the Government has kept of claims by Mr.Hussain Karnell relating to the destruction of weapons by Iraq. [101736]

  The Prime Minister
  Mr Kamil's claims were dealt with by UNSCOM, not the UK. UNSCOM's files are now the responsibility of UNMOVIC. It is they that have the most complete records of Iraqi disarmament claims which they share by regular reports to the UN Security Council.
  42W
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister when he first decided that the possible use of military action to disarm or overthrow Saddam Hussein should become British defence policy. [101922]

  The Prime Minister
  No decision to launch military action against Iraq has been taken. Our policy objectives remain as set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his written statement of 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 4WS. United Nations Security Council resolution 1441(2002) recalls that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violation of its obligations.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is the policy of the Government that the second United Nations resolution on the Iraq crisis will invoke Article 42 of the United Nations Charter. [101931]

  The Prime Minister
  The draft resolution tabled by the UK, US and Spain on 24 February makes it clear that the Security Council would be acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which includes Article 42. It does not make specific reference to individual articles of the Charter.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is in respect of providing compensation to families of civilian victims of military action against Iraq. [101995]

  The Prime Minister
  No decision to launch military action against Iraq has been taken. The UK is committed to acting in accordance with international law.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement of 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 123, on Iraq, what the evidential basis was for his statement that Saddam Hussein has used much of the money from the oil-for-food programme for his own and his family's personal use. [102072]

  The Prime Minister
  This information comes from a number of sources, including contracts submitted for approval to the UN Sanctions Committee.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Lord Levy has represented him in discussions with overseas governments on policy towards Iraq. [101412]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons he would not hold the Northern Ireland Assembly elections on 29 May. [101943]

  The Prime Minister
  We intend that the election will be held on 29 May 2003 and will bring forward legislation to that effect later in the month.

  Security and Intelligence Agencies
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister further to his Written Ministerial Statement of 28 February 2003,Official Report, column 58WS, on the Security and Intelligence Agencies' Vote, what the reasons are for

  43W
  (a) the change in resources, (b) the change in capital, (c) the change in administrative costs limits, (d) the change in the security and intelligence agencies DEL, (e) the take up of end of year flexibility, (f) the PES transfer from the MOD, (g) the PES transfer from the Home Office, (h) the transfer from capital to revenue, (i) the take up of end of year flexibility and (j) the PES transfer from the Cabinet Office; what his policy is on increasing resources to public service organisations (i) as a general rule and (ii) in relation to the security and intelligence agencies, when they have received adverse audit reports on how they have handled existing allocated resources; and if he will make a statement. [101346]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the information provided in my Written Statement of 28 February and in the published Estimates and Departmental Reports for the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Detailed information about the Agencies' accounts is outside the scope of the 'Code of Practice on Access to Government Information' (paragraph 6 of part 1). However, there are processes that exist to ensure that the detail of these accounts can be properly scrutinised while maintaining security.

  Government policies on expenditure apply to the Agencies in the same way as to all other departments.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Prime Minister what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100923]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 7 March 2003.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Community Charge/Council Tax
  Andy King
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people able to pay the(a) community charge or (b) council tax refused to do so in each of the last 10 years; and from how many people the taxes could not be recovered by attachment to earnings or benefits. [100615]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the(a) maximum and (b) minimum penalties for non-payment of financial penalties imposed by magistrates' courts. [99874]

  Yvette Cooper
  When a defaulter is brought before the court, the magistrates will have a number of enforcement options available to them. The sanctions to ensure the payment of fines include an attachment of earnings order if the defendant is in employment or deductions from social security benefits if they are not working. The maximum amount that can be deducted from an unemployed person is £2.70 per week. Other options include the issue of a distress warrant, (which empowers the person executing it to seize a person's goods or money to the value of the sum owed), or as a last resort, the court may decide to commit the defaulter to prison. The Courts Bill currently before Parliament proposes a number of new arrangements to facilitate the enforcement of fines, including new penalties such as clamping vehicles and entering the fine in the Register of county court judgments.

TRANSPORT

  Car Insurance
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with insurance companies on the provision of car insurance for young drivers with an aim to reduce driving without insurance. [101176]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, in reporting on the UK vehicle registration system, recommended a review of the motor insurance industry aimed at reducing uninsured motoring. The Secretary of State established a Modernising Vehicle Registration Implementation Board to take forward the Jill Dando Institute's recommendations. The insurance industry are represented on that board. They have considered a number of matters and we are currently progressing measures which are intended, among other things, to help reduce uninsured driving. The Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 already provides that a driver caught driving uninsured within two years of passing his test will have his licence revoked.

  Disabled Parking
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requirements the Department of Health places on(a) public and (b) private bodies to designate a proportion of parking spaces they provide for disabled only use; and what requirements are placed on such providers to enforce disabled only parking. [101051]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The responsibility for the provision of disabled persons' parking bays on the public highway lies with individual local authorities. They have a wide range of powers available to them to designate parking places for specific users, including bays for use by holders of disabled persons' badges (Blue Badges). The position in private car-parks is different and the conditions of use and provision of parking for disabled people are matters for the individual operators concerned.

  The allocation of parking spaces for disabled people is the subject of a Departmental Traffic Advisory Leaflet (5/95) which includes guidance on the proportion of spaces that might be appropriate. The decision on exactly how many parking spaces to provide, both on and off street, remains one for individual authorities and operators to determine, depending on local circumstances.

  However, under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (when fully implemented) service providers will be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that disabled people do not find it impossible or unreasonably difficult to enjoy the service on the same basis as non-disabled people. This will have implications for local authorities and car park operators, who may have to demonstrate that as well as marking out disabled person's parking spaces, they have taken reasonable steps to ensure they are available to disabled people.
  46W
  In terms of enforcement of disabled persons' parking bays, there are a wide variety of powers available to local authorities under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to tackle abuse and misuse on-street. For example it is an offence to park a vehicle which is not displaying a badge in a designated disabled persons' parking bay.

  Off-street car parks are private property and the conditions of use are a contractual matter between the owner and the motorist. In these car parks, spaces marked for badge holders only are in most cases not legally enforceable, but depend on the courtesy and consideration of other drivers. Car park operators could ask a non-disabled driver to move their car from a space set aside for disabled people but they might not be in a position to insist upon it.

  The Department has, however, given its full support to the 'Baywatch' campaign run by a coalition of disability organisations (including the Disabled Drivers Association and the Disabled Drivers' Motor Club). They are committed to encouraging greater protection of disabled persons' parking bays in retail car parks from abuse by non-disabled drivers.

  The issue of enforcement was a key part of the major review of the Blue Badge Scheme that we have just completed. Following a public consultation process that ended last year, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), the Department's statutory advisers on the transport needs of disabled people, considered responses and submitted 47 recommendations to Ministers on the future shape of the Scheme. I announced in the House on 18 December 2002 that the Government would be taking forward the majority of these, including a number of additional enforcement measures. Details of all the recommendations were placed in the House Libraries on 18 December 2002. The Government will be seeking to implement the changes at the earliest opportunity.

  In the meantime, it is open to anybody to bring instances of fraudulent use to the attention of the police, traffic wardens, the appropriate local authority or car park operators and we will continue to work with these bodies and stakeholder groups to minimise the potential for abuse and misuse.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what role the Government had in assisting London Underground PPP Infrastructure Consortia to obtain grants or loans from(a) the European Investment Bank and (b) other financial institutions; and if he will make a statement. [101751]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government has played no direct role in assisting the London Underground PPP consortia to obtain grants or loans. The method by which they finance their obligations under the PPP, and how they raise the necessary funding, is a matter for the consortia.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) train failures, (b) signals/

  47W
  points failures and (c) track failures there were on each London Underground line (i) in 2001–02 and (ii) in 2002–03. [100995]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information set out in the table.

  London Underground rolling stock, track and signal failures by line

  Rolling stock failures

  Track and signal failures

  Line

  2001–02

  2002–03 to date1

  2001–2002

  2002–2003to date1

  Bakerloo

  1,113

  951

  567

  273

  Central

  2,957

  2,353

  715

  586

  Circle/Hammersmith and City

  2,055

  1,720

  562

  357

  District

  1,149

  1,150

  822

  694

  East London

  147

  80

  94

  62

  Jubilee

  1,427

  865

  518

  312

  Metropolitan

  1,034

  1,067

  749

  584

  Northern

  1,518

  1,104

  531

  646

  Piccadilly

  3,070

  2,181

  433

  283

  Waterloo and City

  36

  60

  32

  29

  Victoria

  1,022

  949

  370

  460

  Total

  15,528

  12,480

  5,393

  4,286

  1 To 1 February 2003

  Transport Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the administrative costs were of the(a) Water Freight grant, (b) Mobility grants, (c) Road Safety grants, (d) Clean Up Haulage grant, (e) Clean Up grant, (f) Powershift grant, (g) Track Access grant, (h) Rail Freight grant and (i) Bus Service Operator's grant in the last financial year. [101474]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 663W.

  Airports
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet a delegation from Essex and Kent on Saturday 5 April to discuss issues surrounding options for an airport in the Thames region. [100858]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers are happy in principle to meet hon. Members with representatives of areas affected by options in the current airports consultation. Although I am unable to make the date suggested by the hon. Member, I am sure that alternative arrangements can be made. I would invite the hon. Member to contact my office.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what statutory authority security companies operate at British airports; and what guidance he issues on the criteria to be used in recruiting security firms at British airports. [101165]

  Consultation document

  Annex

  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Midlands

  D

  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East (Second Edition February 2003)

  C

  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: North of England

  I

  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South West

  D

  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Scotland

  E

  48W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Airlines, airports, air cargo agents and aviation caterers are currently directed under sections 12 to 14 of the Aviation Security Act 1982. While they may engage agents to act on their behalf, they remain legally responsible for the security function. Work is under way to create a list of approved providers of aviation security, which will include those companies contracted by Directed parties to provide a service. Such companies will have to meet certain criteria, set down by my Department, before they can deliver security functions at British airports.

  Croydon Tramlink
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the arrangement between Amey and Croydon Tramlink regarding the Special Purpose Vehicle is a non-recourse financial arrangement. [101427]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Croydon Tramlink is a matter for the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL). I understand that the Tramlink Concession Agreement is between TfL and Tramtrack Croydon Ltd. (TCL). It would not be appropriate for the Government to speculate about TCL's financial arrangements.

  Aviation
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the impact of the potential use of hand-held surface to air missiles on aviation security. [100721]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's approach is to manage the risk to the industries arising from the threat of a terrorist attack. The security measures imposed seek to minimise the industries' vulnerabilities while recognising operational realities. The Government's aim is to set the measures to counter the risk.

  All the security programmes are kept under continuous review. It is not our practice to detail the required security measures for obvious reasons.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has commissioned as part of the Government's work for the Aviation White Paper. [101283]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have commissioned a substantial body of work in connection with the proposed air transport White Paper. Most of the work has been carried out as part of the Regional Air Services studies relating to the North of England, the Midlands, the South West, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Regional Air Services Co-ordination study; and the South East and East of England Regional Air Services study. This work is formally categorised as consultancy rather than research. The relevant reports are listed in the Annexes to the regional consultation documents on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom, as follows.
  49W

  Consultation document

  Annex

  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Wales

  D

  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland

  D

  Copies of the consultation documents have been placed in the House Libraries and are also available on the Department for Transport's website www.aircconsult.gov.uk.

  The Department has also commissioned or is supporting research in a number of areas to inform ongoing policy development. This includes research into the impact of aviation on climate change, the subjective perceptions of noise, Deep Vein Thrombosis, and aircraft engine emissions. In addition, we have offered a substantial contribution to help fund an international study (under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation) into establishing a global emissions trading scheme in which aviation can participate.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many properties have been compulsorily purchased by the Civil Aviation Authority in each year since 1999. [101827]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There has been no compulsory purchase of property by the Civil Aviation Authority since 1999.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cars in the UK run on biofuels; and if he will make a statement on the benefits of the use of biofuels for the environment. [101063]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The best indicator of biofuel use is volume of sales rather than number of vehicles. This has increased significantly since the introduction of a lower rate of duty for biodiesel in July 2002; Customs and Excise figures for January indicate over 400,000 litres of the fuel being sold from around 100 filling stations. The November Pre-Budget Report announced a commitment to introduce a similar preferential duty rate for bioethanol and we would expect a similar pattern of take-up of this new fuel once this has been introduced.

  Biofuels offer a number of environmental benefits compared to conventional mineral fuels. Importantly, they can contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions due to the absorption of carbon dioxide during the growth stage of the biofuel feedstock; recent studies have shown that both biodiesel and bioethanol can reduce emissions by at least 50 per cent. measured over the "life-cycle" of the fuel. In addition, the use of biofuels can help improve air quality, particularly when used in a blend with conventional mineral fuels. Furthermore, the low toxicity and high biodegradability of biodiesel in particular makes its use ideal for sensitive environments such as waterways.

  Biofuels are mainly used in a 5 per cent. blend with conventional fuels. All cars are warranted for use with
  50W
  5 per cent. blends of biodiesel and bioethanol which meet the respective European Fuel Standards, EN590 and EN228. Biofuels not produced to these standards may damage vehicles and their use will invalidate car manufacturers' warranties. It is also an offence to use fuel on which the relevant duty has not been paid.

  Registration Numbers
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the matter of cloned number plates on vehicles; what action in relation to it is planned; and if he will make a statement. [101215]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are extremely concerned about the apparent increase in vehicle cloning in order to avoid road traffic enforcement cameras. We are taking action to tackle this difficult problem.

  Since 1 January 2003 it has been a requirement for suppliers of number plates to be registered with DVLA. To date over 26,000 outlets have registered. This will ensure that in future number plates are only sold by registered suppliers to a purchaser who can show proof of entitlement and identity. Records will be kept of all sales for inspection by the police and local authority trading standards officers. Plates already have to be marked with the details of the producer.

  In addition, in order to prevent the theft of number plates from vehicles for the purpose of cloning, consideration is being given to the use of additional security features designed to establish a clear and visible link between a number plate and the vehicle on which it should be displayed. The use of more secure fixings is also under urgent investigation.

  Highways Agency
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the Highways Agency's performance in registering with the Land Registry its acquisition of land; whether a system is in place to ensure acquired land is registered; and if he will make a statement. [101748]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has not made a specific assessment of the performance of the Highways Agency in registering the acquisition of land with the Land Registry. Solicitors acting for the Agency register land as a matter of course following the acquisition of title.

  Congestion Charging
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the London Congestion Scheme on overcrowding on suburban rail routes into London. [100897]
  51W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Transport for London (TfL) has projected an increase in overall public transport use of 1–2 per cent. as a result of the introduction of congestion charging. TfL expect that there will be about 5,000 additional passengers on London Underground and national rail services in the morning peak (7–10 am). This is around one extra person per carriage.

  TfL are assessing rail patronage using both existing data and an enhanced programme of station and terminal counts at locations in and around the charging zone. TfL will be publishing a comprehensive report detailing all the effects of congestion charging early next year.

  Motorways
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his most recent estimate is of the number of journeys on English motorways each(a) day and (b) year, broken down by (i) cars, (ii) lorries and (iii) other vehicles; what information is available to break these figures down by each such motorway; and if he will make a statement. [101528]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is unavailable in the format requested. Statistical information can be found in the document entitled Transport Statistics, Road Traffic Statistics: 2001 and Transport Statistics Bulletin—Traffic in Great Britain: Q4 2002 Data. Access to both these documents can be found at the following websites: http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/ tables/2002/rts/rts01. htm and www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/ qbullets/qtraff.htm.

  I have arranged for copies of the downloaded document to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the marginal cost to the(a) motorist, (b) other motorists and (c) society of each marginal additional mile of travel on the M25 motorway for each period of the day; and if he will make a statement. [101529]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No estimate at this level of detail is available for the marginal costs of travel on the M25 motorway.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2003, ref 100668, which of the first ports identified are classified as non-fishery. [102128]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The non-fishery trust ports on that list are:

  Caernarfon;

  Chichester;

  Dover;

  Falmouth;

  Harwich;

  Langstone;

  52W

  Littlehampton;

  Port of London;

  Milford Haven;

  Orford;

  Poole;

  Sandwich;

  Shoreham;

  Teignmouth; and

  Port of Tyne.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2003, ref 100668, when a decision will be taken as to whether the ports fall within the classification as public corporations; and what the cause of UK present uncertainty is. [102129]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As soon as we are able to assess the full impact of the proposed classification, my officials will resume discussions with the Office of National Statistics and the Treasury.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the latest annual account of(a) non-fishery trust ports, and (b) fishery trust ports. [102130]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Although non-fishery trust ports are required to submit their annual accounts to the Secretary of State, the obligation to make them publicly available lies with the individual harbour authorities, not my Department. Copies of the annual reports and accounts for each trust port, both fishery and non-fishery, are available from the individual authorities.

  Railways
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with Network Rail on their(a) objectives, (b) accountability, (c) pay awards and (d) performance bonuses. [102170]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right. hon. Friend, the Secretary of State meets the Chairman of Network Rail on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues. Pay awards and performance bonuses are a matter for Network Rail, subject to its licence conditions. These require the preparation of an annual management incentive plan and set out the broad parameters of such a plan.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he was consulted on the Strategic Rail Authority's latest announcement on cuts to rail services to Liverpool; and if he will make a statement. [101430]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: The changes to the rail service to Liverpool were made by the SRA to improve the operational effectiveness of the UK rail network. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, was consulted on these changes and fully supports the SRA's strategy to improve the reliability of train services.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of investment in the national railway infrastructure. [101974]
  53W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 4 March 2003,Official Report, column 942W.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff have been employed by the Office of the Rail Regulator in each year since 1997. [102226]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 46W.

  Rolling Stock
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with(a) the Strategic Rail Authority, (b) South West Trains and (c) Connex South Eastern on their Mark I replacement programme; and when the last Mark I stock will be replaced for each of the operators; [102167]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority on (a) the delay to the replacement of Mark I carriages, (b) the safety implications of the delay and (c) compensation claims for the inoperability of new rolling stock. [102165]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government has regular meetings with the Strategic Rail Authority covering a range of issues including Mark 1 replacement. The SRA is leading an industry wide Mark 1 replacement programme to ensure that all Mark 1 rolling stock is removed from the Network by 31 December 2004. Because of the failure of Railtrack to ensure an adequate power supply for the South London Network, it has become clear that it may be necessary to provide for around 300–350 vehicles to operate on the network after December 2004 but the SRA expects these vehicles to be removed from the network in Spring 2005. From 1 April 2003 all Mark 1 vehicles will be fitted with Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS), which seeks to prevent a collision by providing automatic braking if trains pass red signals or travel at excessive speed. Compensation is a commercial matter between the relevant parties.

  Motoring Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce motoring costs in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [101637]

  Mr. Jamieson
  National statistics show that average motoring costs—for motorists in rural areas and elsewhere—have fallen by 5 per cent. in real terms since 1997. This fall is primarily due to lower car prices which we have encouraged through greater retail competition. We have also reduced vehicle excise duty for motorists who use fuel-efficient cars and introduced fuel duty incentives for clean fuels—all of which rural motorists can benefit from.

  Roads
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the merits of funding new trunk roads in the private sector through road tolls; and if he will make a statement. [101639]
  54W
  Mr. Jamieson
  There has been no general assessment of funding new trunk roads in the private sector through road tolls.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his latest estimate is of the total external social costs in pence per average vehicle mile for road travel in the United Kingdom accounted for by(a) congestion costs, (b) accident costs, (c) air pollution costs, (d) noise pollution costs and (e) climate change costs; and if he will make a statement. [101526]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A study commissioned by my Department from the Institute for Transport Studies1 at the University of Leeds made the following estimates of the marginal external social cost of road use per vehicle kilometre in Great Britain:

  a) Congestion costs: 9.71 to 11.16 pence

  b) Accident costs: 0.82 to 1.40 pence

  c) Air pollution costs: 0.34 to 1.70 pence

  d) Noise pollution costs: 0.02 to 0.78 pence

  e) Climate change costs: 0.15 to 0.62 pence

  1Surface Transport Costs and Charges, Great Britain 1998, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds July 2001.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the total growth in vehicle miles travelled on United Kingdom roads in each year from 1980–81 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [101527]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The year on year growth rates for vehicle miles travelled from 1980–81 to 2002–03 are detailed in the table.

  Percentage

  Year

  All Motor Vehicles

  1980

  6.2

  1981

  1.8

  1982

  2.7

  1983

  1.3

  1984

  5.2

  1985

  2.2

  1986

  5.1

  1987

  7.7

  1988

  7.2

  1989

  8.3

  1990

  1.0

  1991

  0.2

  1992

  0.1

  1993

  0.0

  1994

  2.5

  1995

  2.0

  1996

  2.7

  1997

  2.3

  1998

  1.5

  1999

  1.7

  2000

  0.3

  2001

  1.3

  2002

  2.4

  The figures on which these are based have been published in the Transport Statistics Bulletin (02)23—Road Traffic Statistics: 2001 (Table 1.1) and Transport Statistics (03)5—Traffic in Great Britain: Q4 2002 Data, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the funding of the special purpose vehicle projects being pursued by the Strategic Rail Authority; and if he will list the companies with which the Strategic Rail Authority is negotiating regarding SPV projects. [101183]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is developing its model for procurement of projects, including those in which SPVs may play a role, in discussion with Network Rail. Projects are under preparation but are not yet at the negotiating stage.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budget(a) resource, (b) capital and (c) in total has been provided by his Department to the Strategic Rail Authority in each year since it has been in operation, including in its shadow form, and projected to 2004–05 (i) at out-turn prices and (ii) at today's prices. [95570]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table provides the information requested, for the years from 1999–2000 to 2004–05.

  £million

  Resource

  Capital

  Total

  Outturn prices

  1999–2000

  1,110.7

  0.2

  1,110.9

  2000–01

  1,036.3

  4.6

  1,040.9

  2001–02

  1,248.3

  623.7

  1,872.0

  2002–03

  1,407.4

  944.1

  2,351.5

  2003–04

  3,370.1

  -19.0

  3,351.1

  2004–05

  3,408.0

  -4.0

  3,404.0

  2002–03 prices

  1999–2000

  1,192.0

  0.2

  1,192.2

  2000–01

  1,087.2

  4.9

  1,092.1

  2001–02

  1,279.5

  639.3

  1,918.8

  2002–03

  1,407.4

  944.1

  2,351.5

  2003–04

  3,296.0

  -18.6

  3,277.4

  2004–05

  3,251.6

  -3.8

  3,247.8

  From 1 April 2003 capital grants to the private sector will be classified as resource instead of capital. This is why the figures in the resource column increase from 2003–04 onwards. In 2003–04 and 2004–05, the negative capital figures reflect the fact that the main capital item is income from property sales.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether any specific liabilities of the Strategic Rail Authority, beyond those detailed in his Minutes to Parliament of 27 June 2002, are comprised within the comfort letter proposed to be issued to the Strategic Rail Authority, as set out in the Secretary of State's Minute of 3 February; [98960]

  (2) what requirements for accountability to Parliament he intends to apply to the Strategic Rail Authority in respect of its receipt of guarantees from public funds for its borrowings; [98970]
  56W
  (3) if he will inform the House if his current intentions as regards the matters contained in his proposed comfort letter to the Strategic Rail Authority (3 February 2003 written statement) were to change; [98941]

  (4) whether the contingent liabilities of the Strategic Rail Authority which are proposed to be the subject of a comfort letter from him would score against public sector debt; [98956]

  (5) pursuant to his written statement of 3 February, for what reason his power to guarantee the Strategic Rail Authority's borrowing under Schedule 14 of the Transport Act 2000 is confined to "sums which the SRA borrows temporarily"; and how he defines "temporarily" in this context; [98977]

  (6) whether the contingent liabilities of the Strategic Rail Authority in respect of which he proposes to issue a comfort letter includes (a) the Bridge Facility I, (b) the KfW facilities, (c) the EIB facilities and (d) the legacy working capital facility, as set out in Minutes from him laid before Parliament on 27 June 2002; [98952]

  (7) whether any limit (a) has been and (b) is intended to be set in relation to the contingent liabilities of the Strategic Rail Authority which are proposed to be the subject of a comfort letter from the Secretary of State, as set out in his minute of 3 February; [98957]

  (8) what limit on contingent liabilities, which may be the subject of the proposed comfort letter to the Strategic Rail Authority from him as proposed in his Minute to Parliament of 3 February, is consistent with the Strategic Rail Authority's current (a) agreed budget and (b) financial framework; [98972]

  (9) under what circumstances his statement in paragraph 12 of his proposed comfort letter to the Strategy Rail Authority, that the letter does not create binding obligations and should not be construed as a guarantee, would override his current intention as set out in paragraph 11. [98969]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The contingent liabilities notified to Parliament on 27 June 2002 were in respect of the SRA's specific obligations for the support arrangements for Network Rail. These included support for the Bridge Facility, the KfW facility, the EEB facility, and the legacy working capital facility. The SRA comfort letter notified to Parliament on 3 February 2003 covers the generality of the SRA's financial obligations, and therefore covers, inter alia, the specific obligations notified in June.

  It is not possible to quantify or limit the contingent liabilities in respect of the SRA comfort letter beyond the provisos set out in the letter, especially at paragraphs 9 to 11. The SRA is required to operate within its agreed budget and financial framework.

  Any new contingent liabilities in respect of the SRA, or any significant changes to the nature or size of existing contingent liabilities, will be notified to Parliament in accordance with Government Accounting. Under UK

  57W
  accounting standards, a liability is defined as contingent if it is dependent on uncertain future events or is not likely to be called. Contingent liabilities do not score as public sector debt.

  The Minute accompanying the proposed SRA comfort letter summarises the Secretary of State's statutory powers to finance the SRA. In particular it notes the Secretary of State's opinion that he has no legal power to guarantee the performance of the SRA's financial obligations apart from the provision in Schedule 14 of the Transport Act 2000 in respect of temporary borrowing by the SRA from another person. Temporary borrowing is intended to cover borrowing such as by way of overdraft or bridging facility, where moneys are not intended to be advanced on a long-term basis.

  There are currently no such guarantees from public funds for any temporary borrowing by the SRA. If any such guarantees were to be given by the Secretary of State, or where any sum were to be paid out in fulfilling a guarantee, then notification to each House of Parliament is required in accordance with the provisions of the Transport Act 2000.

  The statement in paragraph 12 of the SRA comfort letter, that it does not create legal obligations, reflects the legal position in respect of that letter. It is compatible with the statement of the Secretary of State's current intentions in paragraph 11 of the comfort letter.

  Trafficmaster Detectors
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether Trafficmaster detectors on motorways and trunk roads are equipped with lenses capable of reading vehicle registration numbers; and if he will make a statement. [101382]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Trafficmaster units on the motorway and trunk road network use two types of detector. The model using an infrared beam is not fitted with lenses. The other type incorporates a camera that reads vehicle registration marks.

  To preserve privacy, equipment at the roadside removes the first and last characters of each number plate read by the cameras. The remaining characters are

  Service

  Offered

  Accepted

  Percentage

  Royal Navy (including Royal Marines)

  3,581

  1,346

  38

  Army

  6,466

  4,340

  67

  Royal Air Force

  8,572

  3,840

  44

  Other (including Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Joint NEC Regiment and civilians)

  1,160

  569

  49

  Total

  19,779

  10,095

  51

  Immunisation against anthrax is recorded in an individual's medical records when it is administered. However, it takes time for copies of these details to be passed back to Ministry of Defence and entered into central records, hence these figures do not include personnel most recently included in the programme. We are confident that a majority of personnel now deploying to the Gulf will opt to receive immunisation against anthrax, and expect take-up to improve further
  58W
  encrypted and processed to create a unique Identifier which is used to calculate the average speed of a batch of vehicles. No other information about a vehicle is recorded, and after two hours, the Identifiers are discarded.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been of British operations in Afghanistan in each month since operations began. [101281]

  Mr. Ingram
  The monthly totals for 2001–02 are as follows.

  £million

  Month

  September

  13.677

  October

  12.016

  November

  25.942

  December

  27.775

  January

  25.335

  February

  24.358

  March

  92.285

  Total

  221.388

  I regret that since 2002–03 figures have not been audited, it might be misleading for me to provide that information on a monthly basis until the NAO audit has been completed. The forecast annual cost is £376 million.

  Anthrax Immunisation
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces offered voluntary immunisation against anthrax received the vaccine at(a) zero weeks, (b) three weeks, (c) six weeks and (d) six months into the course; what percentage of the total offered vaccination this represents; and if he will break down these figures by service. [99363]

  Dr. Moonie
  Up to 12 February 2003, the period for which most recent figures are available, the data requested are as follows:

  as the programme expands. Up-to-date information on second, third and subsequent immunisations could be only provided at disproportionate cost.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on compliance by the UK with the Ottawa Convention on the use of anti-personnel mines. [102352]
  59W
  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom is fully in compliance with its obligations under the Ottawa Convention.

  Astute Submarine
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the delay in the Astute Submarine in service date will affect the Astute Class Training Service run by DSEI; what the cost will be to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [99925]

  Mr. Ingram
  A contract for the provision of an Astute Class Training Service was placed with FAST Training Services Ltd in September 2001. The Department is currently evaluating the impact of realigning the training programme to take account of delays in the ASTUTE submarine programme. A decision on the way ahead, based on the best value for money solution is expected later this year.

  Civil Aircraft Contracts
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what experience of tenders for civil aircraft contracts was available to the assessor of the Wattisham Air Traffic contract. [101373]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the competence of the technical assessor of the bids for the second Wattisham Air Traffic contract. The Wattisham contract was for the provision of air traffic control services, associated equipment maintenance and simulator services. As the most significant proportion of the contract was for air traffic control services for the Ministry of Defence, the most appropriate technical assessor was a military air traffic controller. Against this background it was not considered necessary for the assessor to have had experience of civil air traffic contracting.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the main differences were between the risk assessments used in the first and second assessments of the Wattisham Air Traffic contract. [101374]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: The risk assessment used in the second competition for the Wattisham Air Traffic Contract benefited from lessons learnt in the first competition. The second competition utilised a better defined requirement, a more rigorous and explicit approach to the risk assessment and a different assessment team—all of which improved the quality of the risk assessment overall.

  CVF Project
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether industrial co-operation between France and the United Kingdom on the CVF project will have an impact on his Department's contractual arrangements with(a) BAE Systems and (b) Thales UK; [97329]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the proposed Anglo-French co-operation on the CVF aircraft carrier project. [97326]
  60W
  Mr. Ingram
  While we have been exchanging information and discussing carrier procurement issues with the French Government, to date there has been no Anglo-French co-operation on CVF at the industry to industry level. As a result of France's decision to buy a second aircraft carrier we are exploring potential areas for co-operation—such as transferring design information and facilitating, in due course, industry to industry links—to inform the French decision-making process. Much will depend on the procurement route and solution selected by France. It is not envisaged that industrial co-operation will impact on our procurement strategy and our relationship with BAE Systems or Thales UK.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the firms bidding for the CVF project are estimated to have spent on their participation in the competition. [97330]

  Mr. Ingram
  From the start of the CVF Assessment phase contract in November 1999 to the end of the competitive stage on 20 November 2002, the Ministry of Defence paid around £39 million (VAT inclusive) to both BAE Systems and Thales UK. Additional spending by the companies is a matter for them.

  Dean Hill
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether plans for the closure of Dean Hill munitions depot remain as before; and if he will make a statement. [101662]

  Mr. Ingram
  The closure of Dean Hill munitions depot remains on track and it is planned to cease operations by 1 April 2004.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 55W, on Gibraltar, whether the Government of Gibraltar have requested a meeting to discuss commemoration of 300 years of British sovereignty. [101815]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government of Gibraltar have not requested any meeting with either British Forces Gibraltar or the Ministry of Defence to discuss the commemoration of 300 years of British sovereignty.

  Home Defence
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK's home defence capability. [101670]

  Mr. Hoon
  Defence and security within the United Kingdom are primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Ministry of Defence's contribution, including the enhancements currently being implemented, were described in Section 5 of the White Paper "The Strategic Defence Review: A New Chapter" (CM5566 vol. 1), presented to Parliament on 18 July 2002.

  Media and Communications (Gull)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel from his Department
  61W
  with responsibility for media and communications operations are (a) in the Gulf and (b) on their way to the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [101593]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 7 March 2002, the Ministry of Defence had 160 specialist media operations staff deployed to the Gulf. There is one more member of staff due to be deployed within the next week.

  Mines
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on new technologies for detecting and removing landmines; if he will list such new technologies that have been tested in the field; under what conditions such technologies have been tested; and in which mine-affected countries they are now operational. [101294]

  Mr. Ingram
  Research into mine detection, and destruction or removal, continues to be undertaken by several firms in the United Kingdom. A wide range of technologies have been tested, including: ground penetrating radar; magnetometers (sometimes combined with GPS locating equipment); aerial platforms for mine detection equipment; vehicle mounted mine detection and marking equipment; mine destruction flails; mine destruction and lifting rotators and scarifiers; and pyrotechnic disposal tools. Tests have included remote controlled equipment of all types. Testing work has also been carried out with explosive and mine detection dogs.

  Technologies have been tested under control conditions against dummy targets (for example, a known number of targets buried at a known depth in a known location and in a certain type of soil), in dummy minefields laid in typical conditions found in various parts of the world, and under control conditions against live targets. Equipment that is derived from or has benefited from these tests is operational in the Middle and Far East, in Africa, and in Europe (including Bosnia and Kosovo).

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel are involved in landmine clearance; and in which countries they are working. [101295]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no British troops currently involved in landmine clearance. British troops may be required to clear mines on a war fighting deployment in support of operations. They may also be required to carry out limited mine clearance operations or operations other than war if the local situation demands. However, mine clearance on humanitarian operations will normally be passed to appropriate United Nations or civilian contractors.

  No-fly Zones
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since October 2002 coalition aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone in Iraq have(a) detected violations of the no-fly zones,
  62W
  (b) detected a direct threat to a coalition aircraft and (c) responded in self defence; how much ordnance was released in each month since October 2002; and if he will make a statement. [99714]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: The information requested is only currently available up to the end of January. No-fly zone (NFZ) violations are detected in several ways, though rarely by tactical aircraft. The number of violations recorded, by month, in the southern no-fly zone, is as follows:

  Number

  October 2002

  2

  November 2002

  2

  December 2002

  9

  January 2003

  2

  Coalition aircraft recorded threats on a total of 113 occasions, as follows

  Number

  October 2002

  14

  November 2002

  48

  December

  18

  January 2003

  33

  Coalition aircraft in the southern NFZ responded in self defence against Iraqi Air Defence targets on 41 occasions in the period, and released 128.4 tons of ordnance.

  Responses conducted in self defence

  Number

  October 2002

  6

  November 2002

  10

  December 2002

  13

  January 2003

  12

  Tonnage of ordance released

  Number

  October 2002

  17.7

  November 2002

  33.6

  December 2002

  53.2

  January 2003

  23.9

  Operation Telic
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many urgent operational requirements (UORs) there are in respect of Operation Telic, and if he will list them, together with the total value, broken down where available by individual urgent operation requirement. [101417]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: Over 170 urgent operational requirements (UORs) have been approved at a value of around £500 million for equipment related to Operation Telic. The broad categories into which these can be broken down are shown in the following table.
  63W

  Category

  Description

  Force protection

  Including measures to enhance situational awareness and platform protection, and to maximise Combat ID inter-operability with US forces.

  Modifications for desert operations

  Action to address the lessons identified from Exercise SAIF SAREEA II and enhance, inter alia, the performance of Challenger 2 and AS90 in desert conditions.

  Close-quarter fighting

  A range of measures including additional light machine guns and enhanced night vision and thermal imaging equipment.

  Precision munitions

  Increased stocks of precision munitions in accordance with lessons identified from operations in Kosovo.

  Secure communications

  A range of measures to ensure interoperability with US forces at both unit and platform level.

  NBC protection

  A range of measures to protect UK forces from any CBRN threat.

  Medical support

  Includes enhancements to field hospital infrastructure and medical equipment.

  Support equipment

  Including additional Temporary Deployable Accommodation (TDA), support to logistics operations, water and fuel distribution.

  These measures do not include the additional purchase of stock, such as clothing, which are not obtained by the UOR process.

  Service Personnel (Welfare)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mechanisms exist for servicemen and women on operations to raise concerns and complaints about their welfare; and if he will make a statement. [101592]

  Dr. Moonie
  The provision of operational and non-operational welfare support to Service personnel and their families is a high priority within the Armed Forces personnel strategy and in particular during operational deployments. Welfare is part of the unit commander's responsibility, supported by welfare staff both within the operational theatre and at home. There are a number of avenues through which a Service person can raise a welfare concern. These include the officer commanding their unit or section, the Chaplain and medical staff. The specific procedures, which apply equally to operational and non-operational duty, are publicised to Service personnel through normal briefing arrangements. Welfare support is also available to the families at home.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  HMS GRAFTON (Chinhae 11 to 13 October)

  Nil

  HMS CORNWALL (Pusan 31 August to 4 September)

  Nil

  Nil

  HMS GRAFTON (Pusan 13 to 17 October)

  HMS NEWCASTLE (Pusan 31 August to 4 September)

  RFA FORT VICTORIA (Pusan 31 August to 4 September)

  RFA FORT VICTORIA (Pohang 15 September)

  Uranium-tipped Ammunition
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been given to British troops regarding the(a) handling and (b) use of uranium-tipped rounds. [101159]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 508W to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British forces destined for the Gulf have been equipped with uranium-tipped rounds. [101160]
  64W
  In the event of a complaint, there are the Service Redress of Complaints procedures. These procedures are enshrined in the Services Discipline Acts. They apply equally to welfare as to any other issue and provide the statutory right for all personnel to state a complaint and have it reviewed at successively higher levels in the Service. The principle is to deal with a complaint in an effective, fair and timely manner at the lowest appropriate level but with provision for escalation if it cannot be resolved there.

  South Korea
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British warships have made a visit to South Korea in each of the past five years. [101162]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of Royal Navy ship visits to South Korea in each of the past five years is detailed below. For completeness visits by Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels are also included. HMS Nottingham had been programmed to visit South Korea towards the end of September 2002 but the visit was subsequently cancelled following her grounding off the east coast of Australia in July 2002.

  No visits have been undertaken so far during 2003.

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29 January 2003,Official Report, column 858W to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Airline Passengers (Deportations)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers have been removed from the United Kingdom on scheduled airlines pursuant to Government deportation or removal orders under section 27 of the Immigration Act 1971 in each of the last three years; and at what cost to public funds. [101416]
  65W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: No passengers have been removed under section 27 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  This section of the Act refers to offences committed by carriers rather than passengers. It does not contain powers for removal.

  Section 27 makes it an offence for a captain of a ship or aircraft to knowingly permit a person to disembark when this is prevented under schedules 2 or 3 of the 1971 Act, or to fail to make arrangements for a person's removal under this Act.

  The power to remove persons refused leave to enter and illegal entrants lies in schedule 2 of the 1971 Act. Paragraph 9 of that schedule provides for removal at the carrier's expense and paragraph 10 provides for removal at public expense. Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act allows the Secretary of State to set removal directions pursuant to a deportation order, with the expenses defrayed by the Secretary of State. Section 10(6) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 gives a power to set removal directions for persons who breach their conditions of leave or who obtain leave to remain by deception. The costs must be met by the Secretary of State.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that unaccompanied child asylum seekers are not recruited for(a) sexual exploitation, (b) child labour and (c) other forms of child exploitation. [100315]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Unaccompanied, asylum-seeking children are supported by councils with social services responsibilities, in accordance with the duties laid on them by the Children Act 1989. The Act draws no distinction between such children and other children in need.

  Children at risk of becoming involved in prostitution and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation are likely to be in need of welfare services and, in many cases, protection under the Children Act 1989.

  Where there is a risk to the life of a child or a likelihood of serious harm, an agency with statutory child protection powers, such as the police or councils with social services responsibilities, should act quickly to secure the immediate safety of the child. In some cases, it may be necessary to ensure either that the child remains in, or is removed to, a safe place. Under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, a local authority may provide accommodation for any child within its area if it considers that this would safeguard or promote the child's welfare.

  When a child is identified as at risk of being drawn into prostitution or other commercial sexual exploitation, an assessment of the child's needs will be undertaken in accordance with "Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution" (2000) and "Working Together to Safeguard Children" (1999), the Government's child protection guidance, and the "Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families" (2000). This assessment should be followed by
  66W
  consideration of how best to address the identified needs of the child and the development of a care plan. The plan could include a range of services.

  The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is the primary legislation governing child employment. The legislation is intended to protect children and young people who are being employed. Local authorities are responsible for ensuring compliance with the legislation and any related local byelaws.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to agree a target figure for the removal of asylum seekers whose claims are judged to be unfounded. [101148]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary during Home Office oral questions on 24 February 2003, Official Report, column 13. In his reply my right hon. Friend said 'Within weeks of taking over as Home Secretary, I made it clear to the House that the original intention, the technical commitment that had been made in relation to the number of people who could be removed from the country was not feasible. I indicated then that it would be more sensible to have commitment related to a proportion of the intake and that we should switch our energies into preventing entry by strengthening our borders. That is precisely what I have done in the past 20 months'.

  The Public Service Agreement (PSA) in 2003–04 remains the same as in the PSA 2000 i.e. to enforce the immigration laws more effectively by removing a greater proportion of failed asylum seekers.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers known to his Department are in the UK and not in receipt of any kind of benefit; and how many there were at the same date in each of the last three years. [101237]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: The requested information is not available.

  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers who are supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) are available on the Home Office's Immigration and Asylum Statistics website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances work permits can be issued to asylum seekers who do not have jobs. [101429]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 February 2003]: None. The United Kingdom's work permit arrangements are employer-led. It is for the employer to apply for a work permit in respect of a specific post.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans are in place for Iraqi asylum seekers already in the UK should war be declared on Iraq. [100835]

  Beverley Hughes
  No decision has yet been taken to launch military action against Iraq. Appropriate arrangements are, however, being put in place to deal with the consequences, should such action be taken. Those arrangements cover the situation of Iraqi asylum seekers already in the United Kingdom.

  Chorley Hospital
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking with the Department of Health to provide more resources to Chorley Hospital in order to cope with the number of prisoners being treated at the hospital. [99909]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for meeting the costs of prisoners' medical treatment in hospital lies entirely with the national health service. Allocations made to primary care trusts include provision for the costs of such services.

  Clearsprings Management
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the work Clearsprings Management Ltd. undertakes for the National Asylum Support Service; [100842]

  (2) for what reason Clearsprings Management Ltd. requires a confidentiality agreement from landlords; and if he will make a statement. [100853]

  Beverley Hughes
  Clearsprings Management Ltd. has a contract with the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers. As part of the contract, Clearsprings Management Ltd. is required to respect a confidentiality clause. This is primarily to protect the identities and location of asylum seekers accommodated within their properties. To enable it to comply with the terms of its contract with NASS, Clearsprings Management Ltd. would need to ensure that its contracts with subcontractors also included a confidentiality clause.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will answer the letter dated 13 December 2002, from the hon. Member for Totnes, concerning the status of Mr. Fahrettin Yalcin of Brixham, Devon, which was transferred to his Department from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for reply; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in replying. [101771]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 6 March.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of(a) 13 November 2002, reference 22406/2 and (b) 26 September 2002, reference 19999/2; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in replying. [96152]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 February 2003]: The information is as follows:

  (a) I wrote to the hon. Member on 4 March in response to his letter of 13 November 2002.

  (b) My noble Friend Lord Filkin, responded to the hon. Member's letter of 26 September on 11 February 2003.
  68W
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 23 December 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Ahmed. [98962]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 February 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 20 December 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Mark Kissingu; [100686]

  (2) why he has not replied to the letter to him dated 20 December from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Mark Kissingu. [102187]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 6 March 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reasons he has not replied to the letter to him dated 23 December 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Lutfi; [100688]

  (2) why he has not replied to the letter to him dated 23 December from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Lutfi. [102190]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 7 March 2003.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the inquiry headed by Patrick Carter into the Criminal Records Bureau cost. [100165]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]: The estimate cost of the independent review of the Criminal Records Bureau is £585,000. This includes the costs of various consultancies in support of the review.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the vetting of nannies by the Criminal Records Bureau. [99552]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Child care workers operating in child care settings regulated by Ofsted or the National Care Standards Commission are vetted through the Criminal Records Bureau. Nannies or other child care workers who care for children in the child's own home are not regulated by Ofsted, and therefore, are not vetted by the Criminal Records Bureau.

  However, parents wanting to secure a nanny who has been vetted by the Bureau can go to a registered agency offering to supply such a nanny.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many volunteers have requested checks through the Criminal Records Bureau; how many have been processed; and when he expects the backlog to be cleared to meet the processing time target. [99651]
  69W
  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has received 160,000 applications from people in the voluntary sector. To date 135,000 have been processed and a percentage of the outstanding applications are under three weeks old.

  The latest figures show that 51,857 of all the applications being processed are older than three weeks, that is to say, outside the published service standard of three weeks. This figure does not include incomplete or incorrect applications that have had to be sent back to the customer before they can be processed.

  I am unable to confirm exactly when the backlog of outstanding applications will be cleared. It is, however, falling steadily and equates to less than two weeks' output. When compared against the number of outstanding applications in October 2002, 115,483, and the last week in January 2003, 62,687, there has been a steady improvement in performance.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent guidance on emergency planning has been issued to local authorities. [102134]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The most recent guidance issued to local authorities, emergency services and other responding agencies on emergency planning was 'The Decontamination of people exposed to chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) substances or material: Strategic National Guidance'. Its publication was announced in a Written Ministerial Statement by the Minister of State for the Home Department, on 3 February 2003, Official Report, column 3WS.

  'Dealing with Disaster' (3rd Edition) is currently being revised and will be published by the middle of this year. This forms the core guidance to local authorities and other responders for emergency planning and response to all types of emergencies.

  Guidance on the 'Response to the deliberate release of chemicals and biological agents: guidance to local authorities' was issued in October 2001 by the Cabinet Office. This is currently being updated by the Home Office and will be re-issued in the next two months.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to make available to the public an information booklet for emergency planning in the event of a terrorist attack; and if he will make a statement. [99112]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]: The Government keeps under constant review its arrangements to ensure that the public has the best possible advice about the threat in the United Kingdom. Any general advice has to be carefully considered, to ensure that it is neither too vague nor too comprehensive to be useful, given the many different forms that threat may conceivably take. We already publish information on the current security position on the Government's emergency planning website, www.ukresilience.info, together with practical advice as and when necessary in connection with specific alerts, for example handling suspect packages. That site contains a wide range of emergency planning
  70W
  information and links to other United Kingdom government department sites and related sites around the world, which interested members of the public can explore in depth. The Government will ensure that the advice which it provides strikes the right balance between keeping the public informed and not provoking unnecessary anxiety.

  I also announced to the House on 3 March, a new website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism to ensure the public has more access to information about terrorism and how best to protect themselves.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted in the last 12 months for illegal importation of meat products in their personal luggage on arrival at UK airports. [100782]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Figures on prosecutions for the illegal importation of meat are not collected centrally. Responsibility for prosecutions lies with local authorities. We are, however, aware of one successful prosecution last year, brought by Crawley borough council in July 2002. The Corporation of London Port Health Authority issued six cautions in October 2002.

  A decision to bring a prosecution before the courts is a matter for the enforcement authority. They would take a number of factors into account, including the weight of evidence to prove intent to break the laws in question, and the ability to bring the offender before the British courts. These criteria may not be easy to satisfy in the case of air passengers bringing in meat illegally, especially where small quantities are seized.

  In many cases, other penalties may be more appropriate. Seizures are confiscated and destroyed. We have been working with the Home Office to add details of repeat offenders to the warning index used by immigration officers.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what surveys his Department has made of the views of people living within the Metropolitan police area on the efficiency of the police force; and if he will make a statement. [100603]

  Mr. Denham
  The British Crime Survey asks all respondents a general question regarding how good a job they think the police are doing. Findings for this question are available by police force area and therefore for the Metropolitan police area. The latest findings from this question have been published in "Crime in England and Wales 2001–02: Supplementary Volume 01/03" (table 8.03). A copy can be found in the Library. These results can also be found in the Police Performance Monitoring 2001–02 publication.

  Office for Civil Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role was played by the Government's Office for Civil Nuclear Security in the preparation of the
  71W
  "National Guidance on Decontamination Following the Accidental or Deliberate Release of Dangerous Material", published on 3 February 2003; and what steps he has taken to publicise this guidance to relevant bodies and individuals. [96922]

  Mr. Denham
  Advice on civil nuclear issues to inform the "Strategic National Guidance on the Decontamination of People Exposed to CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear) Substances or Material" was obtained through the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Following the written ministerial statement I made on 3 February 2003, Official Report, column 3WS, a press release announcing the publication of the guidance was issued. The document has been placed on the Home Office and UK Resilience websites. Stakeholder organisations, including Government Departments, the emergency services and local government have been asked to ensure that their members are made aware that copies of the guidance can be downloaded and to place links to the document on their own websites. Notification of the publication has also been sent directly to Emergency Planning Officers.

  Police
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of policing(a) the Iraq demonstration on 15 February and (b) the last Countryside Rally in London. [101145]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the total cost of policing the 'Stop the war' demonstration on 15 February was £965,238 and the total cost of policing the Countryside Alliance Mass Lobby of Parliament on 16 December 2002 was £163,000.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on administration by each English police authority in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [99880]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there are in each police force area in England and Wales; and how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian support staff there were in England and Wales in each year since 1996. [100803]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is provided in the tables. By 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 2004.

  Force

  Police officer strength as at 31 March 2002

  Civilian support staff strength as at 31 March 2002

  Avon and Somerset

  3,096

  1,611

  Bedfordshire

  1,069

  524

  Cambridgeshire

  1,362

  733

  Cheshire

  2,059

  884

  Cleveland

  1,461

  626

  Cumbria

  1,100

  631

  Derbyshire

  1,848

  953

  72W

  Force

  Police officers strength as at 31 March 2002

  Civilian support staff strength as at 31 March 2002

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,053

  1,639

  Dorset

  1,381

  741

  Durham

  1,614

  660

  Essex

  2,946

  459

  Gloucestershire

  1,183

  1,571

  Greater Manchester

  7,217

  545

  Hampshire

  3,480

  3,135

  Hertfordshire

  1,825

  570

  Humberside

  2,058

  1,597

  Kent

  3,355

  1,121

  Lancashire

  3,304

  816

  Leicestershire

  2,100

  1,958

  Lincolnshire

  1,198

  1,442

  London, City of

  764

  816

  Merseyside

  4,125

  600

  Metropolitan Police

  26,223

  247

  Norfolk

  1,468

  1,532

  Northamptonshire

  1,214

  10,459

  Northumbria

  3,929

  819

  North Yorkshire

  1,417

  645

  Nottinghamshire

  2,330

  743

  South Yorkshire

  3,199

  742

  Staffordshire

  2,133

  1,403

  Suffolk

  1,203

  1,087

  Surrey

  1,992

  1,435

  Sussex

  2,893

  1,352

  Thames Valley

  3,762

  1,030

  Warwickshire

  969

  692

  West Mercia

  2,018

  1,043

  West Midlands

  7,681

  1,507

  West Yorkshire

  4,889

  2,061

  Wiltshire

  1,157

  459

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,132

  1,116

  Gwent

  1,333

  3,007

  North Wales

  1,506

  2,364

  South Wales

  3,222

  649

  Total Secondments

  2,336

  887

  Total police officer strength

  129,603

  58,909

  Year as at 31 March

  Police officers

  Civilian support staff

  1996

  126,901

  52,933

  1997

  127,158

  53,011

  1998

  126,814

  52,975

  1999

  126,096

  52,465

  2000

  124,170

  52,588

  2001

  125,682

  53,575

  2002

  12.9,603

  58,022

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletins—Police Service Strength—1996–02

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations have been made by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary on the optimum number of probationers as a proportion of overall office numbers within a police force. [100690]

  Mr. Denham
  None.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) officers, (b) constables and (c) police area constables were probationers in each police force in each year since 1998–99. [100730]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has provided the information in the table. Police area constable is not a recognised category. The
  73W
  proportion of probationers has been rising as a consequence of the very substantial increase in recruitment that began in 2000–01. As a result of that increased recruitment, by 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 2004.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Probationers as a percentage of:

  Force

  All ranks

  Constables

  All ranks

  Constables

  Avon and Somerset

  6.5

  8.4

  5.4

  6.9

  Bedfordshire

  7.4

  9.4

  6.4

  8.2

  Cambridgeshire

  2.0

  2.6

  3.7

  4.8

  Cheshire

  8.4

  10.8

  6.1

  8.0

  City of London

  4.8

  6.1

  1.8

  2.3

  Cleveland

  5.2

  6.5

  4.4

  5.6

  Cumbria

  2.0

  2.6

  3.6

  4.7

  Derbyshire

  6.2

  8.2

  6.7

  8.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  7.9

  10.2

  4.8

  6.1

  Dorset

  7.3

  9.5

  6.5

  8.5

  Durham

  11.9

  15.2

  8.5

  10.8

  Dyfed-Powys

  6.7

  9.0

  6.2

  8.4

  Essex

  6.4

  8.4

  5.2

  6.7

  Gloucestershire

  7.7

  9.8

  11.4

  14.7

  Greater Manchester

  1.6

  2.0

  2.7

  3.5

  Gwent

  6.2

  8.0

  8.3

  10.9

  Hampshire

  8.2

  10.5

  6.5

  8.4

  Hertfordshire

  7.4

  9.6

  11.7

  15.1

  Humberside

  5.3

  6.9

  4.0

  5.2

  Kent

  7.4

  9.5

  8.3

  10.5

  Lancashire

  5.3

  7.0

  2.7

  3.5

  Leicestershire

  9.4

  11.8

  7.5

  9:3

  Lincolnshire

  3.7

  4.9.

  3.0

  4.0

  Merseyside

  7.7

  9.8

  4.2

  5.4

  Metropolitan Police

  10.0

  12.9

  7.7

  10.0

  Norfolk

  5.1

  6.6

  3.5

  4.5

  Northamptonshire

  4.9

  6.2

  4.2

  5.4

  Northumbria

  11.5

  14.6

  7.7

  9.8

  North Wales

  7.1

  9.3

  7.2

  9.5

  North Yorkshire

  5.8

  7.6

  1.9

  2.5

  Nottinghamshire

  0.0

  0.0

  4.3

  5.4

  South Wales

  9.1

  11.7

  8.9

  11.6

  South Yorkshire

  6.8

  8.8

  7.1

  9.3

  Staffordshire

  10.1

  13.2

  3.0

  3.9

  Suffolk

  10.4

  13.2

  1.3

  1.7

  Surrey

  11.4

  14.8

  16.2

  20.7

  Sussex

  7.9

  10.4

  5.6

  7.4

  Thames Valley

  10.4

  13.4

  8.6

  11.0

  Warwickshire

  9.1

  11.6

  6.8

  8.6

  West Mercia

  4.2

  5.4

  1.4

  1.8

  West Midlands

  12.0

  14.8

  9.4

  11.6

  West Yorkshire

  3.8

  4.8

  1.2

  1.6

  Wiltshire

  0.0

  0.0

  1.3

  1.8

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Probationers as a percentage of:

  Force

  Alll ranks

  Constables

  All ranks

  Constables

  Avon and Somerset

  4.5

  5.7

  5.2

  6.6

  Bedfordshire

  10.4

  13.3

  19.1

  24.1

  Cambridgeshire

  11.0

  14.5

  15.8

  20.3

  Cheshire

  5.8

  7.6

  11.7

  15.1

  City of London

  4.1

  5.5

  12.8

  16.6

  Cleveland

  8.6

  10.9

  13.0

  6.5

  Cumbria

  4.5

  5.8

  9.8

  12.6

  Derbyshire

  9.4

  12.2

  11.6

  14.9

  Devon and Cornwall

  7.9

  10.0

  11.0

  14.0

  Dorset

  10.1

  13.1

  12.7

  16.4

  Durham

  7.5

  9.5

  10.0

  12.7

  Dyfed-Powys

  17.9

  23.7

  12.6

  16.4

  Essex

  8.4

  10.8

  13.3

  17.0

  Gloucestershire

  12.0

  15.3

  12.0

  15.3

  Greater Manchester

  3.2

  4.1

  13.0

  16.3

  Gwent

  9.3

  12.0

  16.4

  21.0

  Hampshire

  8.4

  11.0

  11.2

  14.5

  Hertfordshire

  11.9

  15.5

  14.8

  18.9

  Humberside

  7.3

  9.3

  15.4

  19,5

  Kent

  3.6

  4.5

  14.4

  18.2

  74W

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Probationers as a Percentage of:

  Force

  Alll ranks

  Constables

  All ranks

  Constables

  Lancashire

  7.9

  10.3

  11.1

  14.4

  Leicestershire

  9.2

  11.4

  11.8

  14.7

  Lincolnshire

  11.6

  15.0

  15.6

  20.4

  Merseyside

  5.0

  6.4

  8.7

  10.9

  Metropolitan Police

  7.9

  10.3

  9.1

  11.8

  Norfolk

  8.1

  10.4

  12.0

  15.3

  Northamptonshire

  7.9

  9.9

  13.2

  16.7

  Northumbria

  7.9

  10.0

  10.9

  13.8

  North Wales

  11.7

  15.4

  14.0

  18.3

  North Yorkshire

  5.6

  7.2

  2.1

  2.8

  Nottinghamshire

  7.5

  9.6

  0.9

  1.2

  South Wales

  3.0

  3.8

  13.3

  16.9

  South Yorkshire

  5.2

  6.8

  10.3

  13.5

  Staffordshire

  3.8

  4.9

  7.1

  9.3

  Suffolk

  6.4

  8.2

  13.6

  17.1

  Surrey

  19.3

  24.7

  21.2

  26.9

  Sussex

  9.6

  12.6

  13.5

  17.7

  Thames Valley

  10.7

  13.8

  15.1

  19.4

  Warwickshire

  9.2

  11.6

  14.9

  18.7

  West Mercia

  4.0

  5.2

  10.4

  13.6

  West Midlands

  10.3

  12.8

  9.5

  11.7

  West Yorkshire

  5.4

  6.9

  11.0

  13.9

  Wiltshire

  7.1

  9.4

  11.8

  15.3

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average annual cost of employing, training and developing a probationary police constable in the last year for which figures are available. [100731]

  Mr. Denham
  No central records are kept of the overall cost of employing, training and developing a police officer, which is the responsibility of the Chief Officer of each force.

  However, when payment rates were agreed for new recruits to be taken on through the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) provision was made for pay-related costs, recruitment and for the residential element of foundation training. The current CFF payment rates are set out in the table. This does not account for the full cost of training and developing a probationary constable.

  CFF Payment rates 2002–03

  Pay-related costs

  Training

  Recruitment

  Payment per officer at £ per annum

  Payment

  per officer at £

  Essex, Kent, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Thames Valley Police

  28,298

  17,000

  1,056

  Bedfordshire, Hants, Sussex Police

  27,208

  17,000

  1,056

  Metropolitan Police Service

  32,542

  17,000

  1,056

  City of London Police

  32,542

  17,000

  1,056

  All other forces

  26,118

  17,000

  1,056

  1Paid to Centrex

  Port Security
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what security measures are in place for(a) Sovereign harbour in Eastbourne and (b) Newhaven port. [100775]
  75W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Newhaven Port services ships engaged on international passenger and ro-ro freight routes. Therefore, mandatory counter terrorist security measures in accordance with the requirements of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act (AMSA) 1990, are in place at Newhaven Port.

  The level of security at locations such as Sovereign harbour, Eastbourne is decided by the Harbour Authorities or Harbour Operators as appropriate and will be commensurate with their commercial imperatives.

  National Probation directorate staff breakdown—Current staffing levels

  Grade

  National directors office

  Communications

  Corporate support

  Finance

  Estates

  Procurement

  Policy

  SCS

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  GRADE 6

  —

  —

  1(C)

  1

  3

  —

  2

  GRADE 7

  —

  1

  1

  8(1C)

  13(9T)

  —

  3

  SEO

  2

  —

  1

  5

  8(7T)

  —

  —

  HEO

  —

  1(T)

  2

  2

  2(1T)

  —

  8

  E0

  1

  2

  1

  4

  8(5T)

  —

  6(1T)

  AO

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2(IT)

  —

  5(1T)

  AA

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2(1T)

  —

  —

  SPS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2(1T)

  —

  —

  PS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3(2T)

  SRO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ACO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5(4S)

  SPO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  PO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DCI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1(1S)

  DI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Consultants

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  Secondees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5

  4

  7

  28

  40

  1

  34

  Total number consultants

  0

  0

  1

  5

  0

  1

  0

  Directorate total

  333

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Consultant total

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade

  Performance and planning

  What works

  Human resources

  Diversity

  Public protection unit

  ITG

  Total

  SCS

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  10

  GRADE 6

  10

  4

  2

  1

  1

  3

  28(1C)

  GRADE 7

  12

  20(20S)

  7

  —

  1

  9(2T)

  75(1C, 20S, 11T)

  SEO

  —

  3(1S)

  3

  —

  —

  7(2S)

  29 (3S, 7T)

  HEO

  1

  2

  3(2T)

  2(1T)

  3

  7(2T)

  33 (7T)

  E0

  4

  4

  3

  2(IT)

  3

  15(9T)

  53 (16T)

  AO

  —

  5(3T)

  2(1T)

  1(T)

  2

  5(1T)

  25(8T)

  AA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4(1T)

  SPS

  —

  1(T)

  1(T)

  —

  —

  —

  4(3T)

  PS

  1

  6(4T, IS)

  2(2T)

  1(T)

  1(T)

  3(IT)

  17(1S, 11T)

  SRO

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  RO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  ACO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  5(1T)

  13(4S, IT)

  SPO

  —

  l(S)

  —

  —

  l(S)

  3

  5(2S)

  PO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  DCI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  l(S)

  —

  2(2S)

  DI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Consultants

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  21

  30

  Secondees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Total

  29

  49

  27

  7

  21

  81

  333(32C, 32S, 65T)

  Total number consultants

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  21

  32

  Directorate total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Consultant total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  C = Consultant

  S = Secondee

  T = Temporary staff
  76W
  In addition to AMSA the three border agencies, police Special Branch, HM Customs and Excise and the Immigration Service control the movement of passengers and goods through small ports. Their presence at the ports is determined by a risk assessment.

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons by grade and function were employed at the National Probation Directorate on 31 December 2002; and how many of these were consultants. [99931]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is as follows:

  Unaccompanied Children
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) unaccompanied children and (b) children unaccompanied by adults with parental responsibility arrived in the UK in each of the last five years. [100477]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information requested is not available. Information is not recorded (or collated centrally) on whether children who arrive in the United Kingdom are accompanied or unaccompanied.

  The available information on applications from unaccompanied asylum seeking children is given in the table. Reliable information on the entry routes of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC), including when UASCs first enter the United Kingdom, is not available.

  Unaccompanied children1,2,3 aged 17 or under, applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, 1998 to 2002

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  19984

  3,035

  1,085

  1,955

  19994

  3,350

  1,500

  1,850

  20004

  2,735

  1,395

  1,340

  20014,5

  3,470

  1,645

  1,820

  20025,6

  5,945

  1,220

  4,725

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Unaccompanied at point of arrival and not known to be joining a close relative in the United Kingdom.

  3 Figures exclude age dispute cases reported by Asylum Cases Information Database (A-CID).

  4 Figures exclude cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices (LEO) and postal applications.

  5 Provisional figures.

  6 Figures not comparable to manual count data previous to 2002, which excluded LEO and postal applications, which are now reported by A-CID.

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

  Work Permits
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits he has authorised since 1 September 2002. [101428]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 February 2003]: 64,681 applications for work permits have been approved in the period 1 September 2002 to 1 March 2003.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  "The Future of Higher Education"
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether admission on merit to a higher education institution will discharge that institution's access obligations under the White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education". [100155]
  78W
  Margaret Hodge
  Universities are responsible for their own admissions policies. We believe students should be chosen on merit whatever their class and background and that those with the potential to succeed at university should be given the opportunity to do so.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact on education of proposals coming forward from the Convention on the Future of Europe. [101797]

  Margaret Hodge
  The European Union's role in education, vocational training and youth, as set out in Articles 149 and 150 of the current Treaty establishing the European Union, is limited to supporting and supplementing member state action. The draft text of Articles of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, currently being discussed within the Convention, states that education, vocational training and youth are areas for supporting action only.

  Early Education
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of three year olds in Somerset have access to a free early education place; and if he will make a statement. [99816]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. In January 2002, 2,390 free early years education places were taken up by three year olds in Somerset Local Education Authority area.

  We have made the commitment that by April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three year olds whose parents want one, will have access to a free, part-time early education place.

  Latest figures on three year olds in early years education providers were published by the Department in the Statistical Bulletin "Provision for Children Under Five Years of Age in England—January 2002 (08/02)" in December 2002, a copy of which is available from the Library. An electronic copy of this publication is also available on the Department's web-site (www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics).

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effects of the introduction of education maintenance allowance and post-16 education on neighbouring local authorities. [100598]

  Margaret Hodge
  Our assessment of the effects of introducing the education maintenance allowance compares participation by young people in post-16 education in pilot areas with participation by young people in control areas. We have not made an assessment of the effects of introducing EMA on neighbouring local authorities as we intend to introduce the scheme nationally from September 2004.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the retention rates are of pupils moving into post-16 education in(a) education maintenance allowance and (b) non-education maintenance allowance authorities. [100599]
  79W
  Margaret Hodge
  An independent evaluation of EMAs has been taking place since 1999. Evidence from the second year of the pilots, which was published last year, shows that EMAs have had a positive effect, increasing the number of eligible young people in full time education in year 12 in the pilot areas by 5.9 percentage points, compared to the local authority areas without EMA that we have used as controls.

  Foundation Degree Courses
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have enrolled on foundation degree courses in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002; and if he will make a statement. [98502]

  Margaret Hodge
  Latest figures from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) show that there were 12,000 students enrolled on Foundation Degrees in 2002–03, compared with 4,200 in 2001–02. Figures published recently by UCAS, covering students applying for HE courses in 2003–04, show that the number of applications for Foundation Degree courses have more than doubled.

  Maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools1: Eligibility for free school meals January 2002

  Day pupils2

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Number on roll

  Number Known to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for meals

  Number on roll

  Number Known to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage Known to be eligible for free meals

  Northampton, South

  7,721

  753

  9.8

  9,013

  978

  10.9

  England

  4,405,639

  754,511

  17.1

  3,260,931

  486,353

  14.9

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed

  2 Excludes boarding pupils

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students were in higher education in each year since 1980. [94709]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available information is given in the table.

  Higher Education1 Students in Great Britain

  Year

  Postgraduate

  Undergraduate

  Total2

  1980–61

  101,400

  699,800

  801,200

  1981–82

  102,600

  728,900

  831,500

  1982–83

  100,000

  749,600

  849,700

  1983–84

  103,400

  767,900

  871,300

  1984–85

  107,300

  774,500

  881,700

  1985–86

  114,200

  795,100

  909,300

  1986–87

  121,200

  823,800

  945,000

  1987–88

  125,600

  842,300

  968,000

  1988–89

  134,500

  869,100

  1,003,600

  1989–90

  145,700

  920,900

  1,066,700

  1990–91

  163,600

  982,400

  1,146,100

  1991–92

  188,900

  1,079,000

  1,267,900

  1992–93

  213,100

  1,195,700

  1,408,800

  1993–94

  236,900

  1,304,400

  1,541,300

  1994–95

  297,000

  1,400,800

  1,697,800

  80W
  We welcome the increase in numbers. We now need to build on this as we look to make Foundation Degrees the standard two year qualification at this level.

  Free School Meals
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children will be entitled to free school meals under the Government's new child tax credits from April. [101142]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  From 6 April 2003, we estimate that 1.2 million children in England will be entitled to receive free school lunches. This estimate includes around 162,000 children who will be entitled to receive free school lunches because their parents claim the new child tax credits. This figure includes 75,000 new recipients who would not have previously benefited from this entitlement.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Northampton, South are entitled to free school meals; and what the average is in English constituencies. [100785]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The latest information available is shown in the table:

  Higher Education1 Students in Great Britain

  Year

  Postgraduate

  Undergraduate

  Total2

  1995–96

  310,800

  1,476,200

  1,787,000

  1996–97

  310,300

  1,534,500

  1,844,800

  1997–98

  321,400

  1,561,200

  1,882,600

  1998–99

  337,900

  1,579,500

  1,917,500

  1999–2000

  351,300

  1,586,100

  1,937,500

  2000–01

  363,600

  1,620,800

  1,984,400

  2001–023

  371,800

  1,669,100

  2,040,900

  1 Census count as at December 31 in years up to 1993–94, and as at December 1 subsequent years. Includes home and overseas HE students studying both full and part time courses at HE institutions, FE institutions and the Open University.

  2 Numbers may not add as totals were calculated before rounding.

  3 Provisional.

  Note:

  Numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have been enrolled in(a) higher and (b) further education in each academic year since 1997–98. [96702]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest information is shown in the table.
  81W

  Students on higher and further education courses—England

  Academic year

  Higher education1

  Further education2

  1997–98

  1,568,200

  3,767,300

  1998–99

  1,591,400

  3,662,300

  1999–2000

  1,610,000

  3,608,100

  2000–01

  1,651,600

  3,671,400

  2001–02

  31,690,900

  Not available4

  1 Census count as at 1 December. Covers all home and overseas students on postgraduate and undergraduate courses, including HE students in FE colleges and the Open University.

  2 Based on a whole year count of students. Includes FE students in HE institutions.

  3 HE figures are provisional.

  4 The whole year count of students in FE sector colleges is collected retrospectively after the end of the academic year.

  Maintenance Awards
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when Education Maintenance Awards will be introduced in(a) Blackpool and (b) Lancashire. [101492]

  Margaret Hodge
  The national Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) scheme will be available from September 2004 across the whole of England.

  In areas such as Blackpool which are not part of the pilot scheme, the first tranche of eligible students will be those who reach the compulsory school leaving age in the 2003–04 academic year.

  East Lancashire is currently piloting a variant of EMA whereby young people are given help with transport costs. This will continue until the national scheme is introduced.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [101482]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Sure Start schemes; if he will list by education authority those approved to date; and if he will make a statement. [99814]

  Maria Eagle
  A major evaluation of Sure Start began in January 2001. It will examine the impact of Sure Start on children, families and communities, both in the short, medium and long term by tracking a sample of 8,000 children and their families over time. Information on impact and effectiveness will become available over the next 12–18 months. 427 of the 524 planned Sure Start local programmes have been approved to date. In addition we are funding 50 Mini Sure Start local programmes in rural areas and areas with pockets of deprivation. Of these, 49 have been approved to date.
  82W
  A list of the programs has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Sure Start schemes there are in(a) rural and (b) urban areas. [99815]

  Maria Eagle
  Of the 524 planned Sure Start local programmes there are 15 based in identifiably rural areas and 509 located in predominantly urban areas. Of these, 427 Sure Start local programmes have had their funding approved to date.

  In addition, we are funding a pilot project of 50 Mini Sure Start local programmes in rural areas and areas with pockets of deprivation. These programmes cover areas where the number of disadvantaged children living in a defined area is less than the 800 required for a full local programme and so would not be covered by the traditional Sure Start model. The Mini Sure Start local programmes are building on existing services like Neighbourhood Nurseries or other facilities delivering children's services and using Sure Start funding to deliver outreach and additional health work. Of the 50 Mini Sure Start pilots, 29 are in rural areas.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Sure Start programmes have been established in Somerset; if he will list them; and if he will make a statement. [99821]

  Maria Eagle
  Since 1997 three Sure Start local programmes have been established in Somerset. These are Bridgwater (Sedgemoor); West Somerset (West Somerset); and Taunton Deane (Taunton Deane).

  Two mini Sure Start programmes have also been established in Somerset in this time period, and are located in Glastonbury and Chard. These mini Sure Start programmes are building on Neighbourhood Nurseries and are using Sure Start funding to deliver outreach and additional health work.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what reasons underlie the recent increase in university tuition fees. [100359]

  Margaret Hodge
  As in previous years, the maximum student contribution towards tuition fees for full-time undergraduates in England and Wales, attending courses at publicly funded institutions of higher education, has increased by £25 in order to maintain its value in real terms.

  University Museums (Funding)
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on funding for university museums. [101464]

  Margaret Hodge
  University museums in England receive funding through higher education institutions' block grant from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). In addition, the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) provides funding of over £9 million a year to selected university museums and galleries. University museums also receive funds from other sources, for example from donations and as a result of providing services.

  Violence/Harassment
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what figures his Department collates on the incidence of(a) violence and (b) harassment perpetrated (i) by higher and further education staff on students and (ii) by students on higher and further education staff. [101727]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information is not collected by the Department on the incidence of violence and harassment by further and higher education staff on students, nor by students on staff.

  Major injuries and others resulting in more than three days' absence from work as a result of physical violence are reportable to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. Between 1996 and 2001 there were 117 major injuries and 561 over three-day injuries to all teaching staff as a result of physical violence reported to HSE. These figures include teachers in all schools, further and higher education and adult and other education institutions. Information is not available on whether the assaults were carried out by pupils/students, parents or others.

  Work Experience
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003, ref 96764, if he will list the independent evaluations of work experience placements which have taken place; and if he will make a statement. [100256]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There have been two independent national evaluation studies on the pre-16 work experience programme, both carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies: "Pre-16 Work Experience in England and Wales" (IES Research Report, 1996), and "Pre-16 Work Experience Practice in England: An Evaluation" (IES Research Report, May 2001). These evaluations both show that placements are generally satisfactory and well-received by schools, pupils and employers. The second evaluation indicated that overall quality had improved since the first, reflecting the impact of a number of initiatives taken to enhance it, but a very small minority of placements were not of good quality and there was scope for further improvement in aspects of practice in some schools. As I indicated in previous answers to the hon. Member, we are committed to enabling all pupils at Key Stage Four to have at least two weeks of high quality work experience, and have measures in hand to promote this.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Company Pensions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the shortfalls in company pension schemes as a result of compliance with FRS17. [100530]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are a number of alternative ways of evaluating the assets and liabilities of pension schemes. The FRS17 accounting standard sets out how pension assets, liabilities and costs should be reflected in 84W
  company accounts. It offsets the long term liabilities of schemes against the current value of assets. The standard is the responsibility of the Accounting Standards Board which is independent of Government. Although companies are currently required to present balance sheet and performance statement information under the FRS17 standard in the notes to their accounts, mandatory full implementation of FRS17 has been deferred until 2005. FRS17 does not in itself create pension liabilities but seeks to make them clear in company balance sheets. It is therefore not appropriate to calculate an estimate of the shortfall in company pension schemes as a result of compliance with FRS17.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the estimated take-up of the minimum income guarantee in 2002–03 is; and if he will make a statement; [99148]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the numbers of people eligible for minimum income guarantee in 2002–03. [99149]

  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 2000–01 will be released on 27 March 2003.

  Information on the number of people eligible for Minimum Income Guarantee in 2002–03 is not available. The latest published number of recipients of Minimum Income Guarantee as at November 2002 is 1,768,000. This estimate is taken from a 5 per cent. sample of administrative data and may be subject to a small degree of sampling error.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 27 January 2003,Official Report, column 649W, in what order he will be sending out invitation letters to recipients of each category of benefit. [95566]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The mailing exercise for direct payment began in October 2002 with four weekly paid Child Benefit customers and people in receipt of a War Pension. Since then we have continued with these benefits and started to issue mailings to people getting Retirement Pension. From March 2003 we plan to start to write to weekly paid Child Benefit customers.

  Also from March 2003 we will start to contact customers in receipt of Jobcentre Plus benefits (Income Support, Incapacity Benefit, Industrial Injuries Scheme Benefits, Severe Disablement Allowance, Bereavement Benefit and Widows Benefit). Jobseeker's Allowance customers will be dealt with as part of their usual contact with the Department and will not receive a mailing.

  In summer 2003 we plan to start writing to customers in receipt of Disability and Care benefits including Invalid Care Allowance, Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of benefit claimants he expects to be unable to receive their benefits into a bank or building society account, including a Post Office card account; what types of people he expects to fall into this category; and when the new arrangements for these people are likely to be announced. [100796]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Around 85 per cent. of our customers currently have access to an account suitable for Direct Payment. For those customers who wish to open a new account information on all of the options available is given in mailings being sent to benefit and pension customers.

  There is now a wide range of easy to operate bank and building society accounts available. The availability of these accounts and the Post Office card account will mean that there should be only a small number of people who cannot open a suitable account. However, we have always recognised that there will be a small group of people who we cannot pay directly into an account and they will continue to be paid in the same way they are now until an alternate payment method is available. Work is in progress to develop a solution to make these payments. Once this work is complete we will announce details.

  Commonwealth Pensions
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will uprate the pensions paid to UK pensioners living in all Commonwealth countries; and if he will make a statement. [100877]

  Centre

  Target

  April to December 2002 Notes

  Notes

  DWP Corporate

  Public Enquiry Office

  To answer 65 per cent. of all calls offered to the PEO.

  41 per cent.

  Average performance calculated April-December 2002. No data for November 2002

  Jobcentre Plus

  Jobcentre Plus Chief Executive helpline

  100 per cent. of calls received in 20 seconds

  100 per cent.

  This is a single line service operated by one member of staff. The number of calls received and answered are recorded but the telephone system does not enable the monitoring of any callers receiving an engaged tone.

  Employer Direct

  1: 80 per cent. of calls answered within 20 seconds

  85 per cent.

  2: Maximum of 5 per cent. of calls abandoned after 20 seconds

  3 per cent.

  Jobseeker Direct

  1: 95 per cent. calls answered

  98.0 per cent.

  Current Jobseeker direct telephone technology is unable to monitor how quickly calls are answered

  2: 1 job submission per call

  1.12

  3: 8 job entries per service point per week

  9.1

  One—Milton Keynes

  1: 65 per cent. of calls answered within 25 seconds with no more than 10 per cent. abandoned

  68 per cent.

  2: 80 per cent. of call backs made within 48 hours.

  66.66 per cent.

  Figure supplied is calculated average as unable to supply exact figures in time available.

  One—Taunton

  1: 65 per cent. of calls answered within 25 seconds with no more than 10 per cent. abandoned

  70.1 per cent.

  2: 80 per cent. of call backs made within 48 hours.

  Not available

  86W
  Mr. McCartney
  State pension is uprated in some Commonwealth countries and certain other countries abroad where there is a legal requirement or a reciprocal social security agreement to do so.

  The Commonwealth countries with which the UK has reciprocal agreements allowing state pension upratings to be paid are, Barbados, Cyprus, Jamaica, Malta and Mauritius. Pensions are not uprated in any other Commonwealth country.

  The uprating of state pensions abroad is the subject of a Court of Appeal hearing set for 24 and 25 March 2003. This is an appeal against the High Court's finding that the Government is not in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights by not annually uprating the state pension in countries where there is no agreement to do so.

  Departmental Helplines
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets are in place for each of the Department's telephone helplines; and what the most recent performance figures against these targets are. [91973]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the targets for each of the Pension Service call centres; and what the performance against those targets has been. [98108]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information in the table shows the targets currently in place for each of the Department's telephone helplines and recent performance against them.
  87W 88W

  Centre

  Target

  April to December 2002

  Notes

  One—Cwmbran

  1: 65 per cent. of calls answered within 25 seconds with no more than 10 per cent. abandoned

  69.3 per cent.

  2: 80 per cent of callbacks made within 48 hours.

  70.0 per cent

  Jobcentre Plus Pathfinders

  Answer 80 per cent. of calls within 30 seconds (see note)

  90.5 per cent.

  This measure excludes calls that abandon within the 30 seconds time to answer target time.

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  1: 99 per cent. calls answered

  97.76

  2: 6 minute call duration

  6.54

  3: 70 per cent referrals to fraud

  78.45

  The Pension Service

  The Pension Service Chief Executive helpline

  All calls answered within 30 seconds

  100 per cent.

  This is a single line service operated by one member of staff. The number of calls received and answered are recorded but the telephone system does not enable the monitoring of any callers receiving an engaged tone.

  Pension Centres

  Not currently in place—see note: From April 2003 these will be 1: To ensure that less than I per cent. of attempted calls receive an engaged tone or message and

  N/A

  In 2002–03 the priority has been to maintain quality of service during transition of the service into 26 regional pension centres.

  2: To ensure that 92 per cent. of calls to Pension Centres are answered 90 per cent. of calls answered

  92.7 per cent

  International teleclaims Pension Direct

  1: Answer 92 per cent. of calls offered to ACD

  91.6 per cent.

  2: Average time to answer of 30 seconds

  50 seconds

  Retirement Pension teleclaims

  1: 90 per cent. of calls answered in 30 seconds

  88.16 per cent.

  2: No more than 1 per cent of calls are blocked1

  0.64 per cent.

  Retirement Pension Forecasting Team

  90 per cent. of calls answered in 30 seconds

  81.25 per cent.

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  1: 90 per cent. of calls answered in 30 seconds

  99.97 per cent.

  2: 1 per cent. of calls are blocked1

  0.34 per cent.

  Children Group

  Child Benefit Centre

  90 per cent. of callers answered (this current internal target excludes the number of times customers have to re-dial.)

  94.5 per cent.

  90 per cent. of calls answered within 20 seconds from transfer to Inland Revenue April 2003.

  Child Support Agency National Enquiry and Customer Help lines

  1: 85 per cent. of calls to be answered first time

  91.8 per cen

  2: No more than 20 per cent. of calls to be abandoned

  12.1 per cent.

  Disability and Carers Service

  Benefit Enquiry Line

  1: 90 per cent. of calls answered within 30 seconds

  54.75 per cent.

  2: Ineffective calls no more than 15 per cent.

  30.9 per cent.

  (BT announcement or engaged tone)

  3: Occupancy 80 per cent.

  91.9 per cent.

  This is a measure of time advisors wait to take call

  4: Utilisation 64–70 per cent.

  68.9 Per cent.

  This measures the overall proportion of worked time that advisors handle calls.

  5: Productivity 80 per cent.

  84.6 per cent.

  This measures the impact of time required for breaks

  Centre DLA/AA Helpline

  Target: 90 per cent. of calls answered within 30 seconds

  17 per cent. answered in 30 seconds

  Outsourced centres The Pension Service

  Winter Fuel Help Line

  95 per cent. calls answered first time within 10 seconds

  96.3 per cent.

  Pensions Information Line (PIL)

  90 per cent. calls answered first time within 10 seconds

  96 per cent.

  Pensions Charter Information

  Same figure as Pensions Information Line (PIL)

  See PIL above

  Inherited SERPS

  1: 80 per cent. calls answered within 20 seconds

  98.5 per cent.

  2: 95 per cent. calls answered in 40 seconds

  99.42 per cent.

  89W

  Centre

  Target

  April to December 2002

  Notes

  Pensioners Guide

  90 per cent. calls answered first time within 10 seconds

  87.8 per cent.

  Winter Fuel Bulk Line

  90 per cent. calls answered first time within 10 seconds

  90 per cent.

  Minimum Income Guarantee (leaflet order line)

  85 per cent. calls answered first time within 10 seconds

  71 per cent.

  Corporate and others

  Welfare Reform Order-line

  90 per cent. calls answered first time within 10 seconds

  97 per cent.

  Sure Start Response Line

  Same as Welfare Reform Line

  Direct Payment -Customer conversion centre

  95 per cent. calls answered in 15 seconds

  97.53 per cent.

  Direct Payment -Information Line

  95 per cent. calls answered in 15 seconds

  98.7 per cent.

  Interactive Electronic Services

  1:95 per cent. of calls answered within 15 seconds

  100 per cent.

  Service commenced 28 October 2002. All calls have been answered within 15 seconds

  2: 100 percent. availability of call centre

  100 per cent.

  This measures whether the call centre was open and that there were staff available to answer calls during contracted hours

  Working Age

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  90 per cent. calls answered first time within 10 seconds

  90.6 per cent.

  New Deal

  85 per cent. calls answered first time within 10 seconds

  90 per cent.

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  85 per cent. calls answered first time within 10 seconds

  89 per cent.

  New Deal for Disabled People

  90 per cent. calls aswered first time within 10 seconds

  100 per cent.

  Publicity Register

  90 per cent. calls answered first time within 10 seconds

  90 per cent.

  Child Support Reform Information Service (CSA Contact Centre)

  85 per cent. calls answered first time within 10 seconds

  37.9 per cent.

  This service is primarily to respond to bulk mailings to clients using dedicated agents. In this period the centre has only been required to handle low numbers of calls offered on an intermittent basis dealing mostly with third party. Theses are not handled by dedicated agents.

  1 Blocked calls are those where the caller is unable to get through to the service because of a limit placed on the number of calls that can be accepted. The caller receives a network message or engaged tone.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 3 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Akbar Ali. [102184]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 6 March 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 3 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms Donna Neokli. [102189]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 6 March 2003.

  Pension Forecasts
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the accuracy of information on entitlement to SERPS, which is provided by his Department to individuals via pension forecasts. [99957]
  90W
  Mr. McCartney
  The calculation of additional pension, which includes SERPS, state second pension, graduated pension and any contracted-out deductions is based upon information held on an individual's national insurance record and information provided by the customer on form BR19 when they request a state pension forecast.

  The calculation is based upon current pension legislation and has been thoroughly tested.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the accuracy of information provided to individuals regarding their future pension entitlement(a) within pensions forecasts provided on request and (b) within pension forecasts issued automatically. [99958]

  Mr. McCartney
  The calculation of all pension forecasts is based upon current pension legislation and has been thoroughly tested.

  Pension forecasts on request are based upon an individual's national insurance record and also detailed information provided by the individual on form BR19 when they apply for a forecast.
  91W
  Forecasts issued "automatically" will be either a combined pension forecast (CPF) or a state pension forecast issued to a specific group. A CPF is the existing benefit statement issued by the employer/pension scheme provider coupled with a state pension forecast.

  From May 2003 the Government is issuing automatic state pension forecasts to the self-employed.

  Automatic forecasts are based upon a set of specified criteria relating to working status and National Insurance contributions. Planned retirement will be assumed to be at state pension age.

  Included in the literature accompanying an automatic forecast is an invitation to request a more detailed Individual Pension Forecast (IPF) should customers wish to provide the Department with more personal information about their likely circumstances and intentions leading up to retirement.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will review the practice of recording nil on individual pensions forecasts, when exact levels of entitlement are not known; and if he will make a statement. [99961]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are two elements to a pension forecast. They cover the position at the time the forecast is issued as well as a projection of the position at state retirement age. The first element provides exact information on state pension at "today's" rates based on an individual's current national insurance record at the time the forecast is provided. No assumptions are made in calculating this element of the forecast.

  The forecast of expected state pension at retirement age is based on the same record, which assumes that contributions will continue at the same level. Further information is supplied with the forecast to explain the calculation and the projection. In some instances the pension entitlement will be "nil" at the time the forecast is requested. For example, if someone asks for a state pension forecast but has less than 10 years national insurance contributions then they have not accrued enough national insurance contributions for a state pension at that time. However, taking account of current levels of contributions, and projecting that they continue at that level, may mean we can give a positive forecast at retirement age. Some women though may have elected to pay the reduced rate national insurance contribution, so they would not have an entitlement to a state pension in their own right and their forecast would remain as "nil".

  The purpose of providing the calculation at "today's" rates and at retirement age is to provide information to individuals to help inform their pension planning and enable them to make informed choices with regard to their retirement income levels.

  Pensioner Households
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of how many pensioner households there are in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland. [102034]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are 5,800,000 pensioner households in the United Kingdom and 515,000 pensioner households in Scotland.
  92W
  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on Census 2001 Key Statistics for local authorities in England and Wales and the General Register Office for Scotland rounded to the nearest 5,000 households.

  2. A household comprises one person living alone or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address with common housekeeping, that is sharing either a living room or sitting room or at least one meal a day.

  3. A pensioner household is defined as either a single person over state pension age, a couple, where both partners are over state pension age, or a group of individuals who are all over state pension age.

  Pensioners (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent steps he has taken to improve the financial position of pensioners in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [98347]

  Mr. McCartney
  Over 5,300 people in Portsmouth benefit from the Minimum Income Guarantee—a policy we introduced—and receive an average £49.83 a week. 31,600 pensioners have benefited from the above inflation increases in the State Pension. Additionally 33,800 people received a Winter Fuel Payment of up to £200. Those Portsmouth pensioners eligible for Pension Credit stand to gain around 400 a year on average.

  The creation of The Pension Service provides an ideal opportunity to further encourage pensioners to take up their entitlements. Not only are our customers being encouraged to claim when they ring their pension centre but we also have a network of local service teams throughout the country actively encouraging take up.

  There is a local service team of 18 staff covering the area of Portsmouth, Havant and East Hants, meeting customers in the community and actively encouraging take-up. They are developing advice and drop-in surgeries in partnership with other local organisations. For example, in partnership with Portsmouth local authority, the team provide Pension Service advisors every Monday at the Somerstown and Landport Access Points, and in partnership with JobCentre Plus they attend Robuck House Cosham on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

  Pension Entitlement
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to make available information on pension entitlements to British Citizens working in other EU countries. [101079]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are several information products available from either DWP or Inland Revenue (IR) to British Citizens who leave the UK to work in another European Union (EU) country. These products provide appropriate information that can be either general in nature or specifically tailored to the individual.

  There are two comprehensive information leaflets available. The leaflet SA29, "Your Social Security Insurance, Benefits and Health Care Rights in the European Economic Area', explains specifically about social security, including State Pensions, within the EU. Leaflet NI38, "Social Security Abroad" explains about social security for people living abroad. Both leaflets are

  93W
  available on the internet, from local DWP offices or from the Pension Service and IR offices in Newcastle, which deal specifically with people living abroad.

  The websites of DWP, the Pension Service and IR give comprehensive information about their services. This includes information about working in another EU country and the impact on State Pension entitlement. These sites have links to each other and there is a hyperlink from the DWP website to the European Commission website for people wanting further information about the European Community Regulations on Social Security. In addition, the DWP is playing a major role in a new EU-funded project aimed at linking national social security administration websites (the COWEBS project). This project is specifically targeted at the information needs of migrant workers. It will compliment the web services already available; both by providing user friendly access to each country's website and, in the medium term, by making general information available on each site in the main European languages, in addition to the national language.

  IR provide, on written request or via the internet, a comprehensive State Pension forecasting service for people who have lived or worked abroad, which tells people about their future State Pension entitlement including the effect of the EC Regulations on Social Security. IR issue approximately 9,000 State Pension forecasts a year to people who have worked or lived in the EU.

  A State Pension claim pack is sent to people about four months before they reach State Pension age inviting them to claim their State Pension, including those who are recorded as living or who have lived or worked in the EU.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy to use the terms 'pension income' instead of 'annuity' and 'pension savings' for funds paid into a pension plan. [101331]

  Mr. McCartney
  The terms 'annuity' and 'pension income' are not interchangeable. An annuity is a product that guarantees an income stream rather than being the income stream itself. Consequently, while an annuity can be a source of pension income, pension income need not be in the form of an annuity and it is important that this distinction is made clear. As far as the term 'pension savings' is concerned, the Government are generally in favour of terms like these, which are simple and understandable to individual savers and pension scheme members. The expression 'pension savings' is used in several places in the Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement" (Cm 5677), which contains proposals to make information available to individuals in the clearest possible way, to help them make decisions about working longer and saving more for retirement.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research he has done to assess the likely impact of the end of the Inland Revenue qualifying regime on the ability of those on low incomes to save for their retirement. [101356]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.
  94W
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 6 February 2003, Official Report, column 397W, and confirm that the Government will consider the impact of the Sandler proposals on those on low incomes.

  State Pension
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer, net of savings in means-tested benefits and of non-introduction of the pension credit and of additional income tax revenue, of an increase of £5 per week in the basic state pension together with the introduction of age additions of £5 per week at age 75–79 and £10 per week at age 80 years and over, on the basis that the age additions for those aged 75 to 79 and 80 years and over are paid in full, regardless of contribution record. [94404]

  Mr. McCartney
  Our priority is to target help on those current pensioners who have the lowest incomes. While it is true that older pensioners tend to be poorer on average, income inequality is far more pronounced across the whole pensioner population than between pensioners of different ages. For example, the median net income of the richest fifth of pensioner couples is around four times that of the poorest fifth.

  Age additions are not the most effective way to target those pensioners with the lowest incomes. For example, just under half of all minimum income guarantee claimants are aged under 75.

  From October 2003, the poorest third of pensioner households will have gained over £1,500 a year in real terms as a result of the reforms introduced by this Government.

  If the maximum rate payable of the basic state pension was increased by £5 per week and weekly age additions of £5 were introduced for people aged 75-79 and £10 for people aged 80 and over in 2003-04, we estimate that the increase in public expenditure could be in the region of £0.5bn. This assumes that pension credit is not introduced and spending is re-directed into the basic state pension. It is also calculated on the generous assumption that consequent savings in other benefits and any additional tax yield are channelled back into the basic state pension.

  In this scenario, many of the poorest pensioners are no better off than they would have been under pension credit because their increased basic state pension is completely offset by the reduction in their minimum income guarantee. Instead, expenditure is targeted on those further up the income distribution. In addition many pensioners with modest private pension provision would be worse off under this scenario than under pension redit.

  For example, a person aged 75 is receiving a full basic state pension and has a small private pension worth £10 per week. Under these proposals, they would receive a basic state pension of £87.45, plus their private pension of £10 per week and would be topped up to £102.10 by the minimum income guarantee.

  Under pension credit they would receive £77.45 from the basic state pension and would still be topped up to the guarantee of £102.10. However in addition they

  95W
  would also receive a savings credit of £6 per week, giving a total weekly income of £108.10. This person is over £300 per year better off under pension credit than under the suggested proposals.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are in cash terms for Great Britain and are rounded to the nearest £0.5bn.

  2. The estimate takes account of offsetting savings in income related benefits and additional tax yield. Income related benefit offsets are calculated using the Department for Work and Pensions Policy Simulation Model for 2003/04. Additional tax yield is calculated by the Inland Revenue based upon the Survey of Personal Incomes2000/01, projected to 2003/04.

  3. Calculations assume the maximum rate payable of the Basic State Pension is increased by £5 per week and all other payments proportionately and that age additions of 5 per week are paid to all those aged 75–79 and £10 per week to those aged 80 and over.

  4. For modelling purposes, the pension credit is assumed to be in place throughout2003/04. In fact, the pension credit will begin in October 2003.

  5. Projections of distributional consequences for 2003/04 are subject to a variety of assumptions and should be treated with caution.

  Source:

  Department for Work and Pensions calculations.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 13 February 2003,Official Report, column 969W, on top-up fees, whether his Department will be undertaking studies to assess the impact of the proposed introduction of university top-up fees on the pension contributions of those under 40 years of age. [101288]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department's regular annual review of future research requirements is currently under way, and when it is complete, the Research Programme will be published. At this stage, we are unable to provide details of plans for specific studies. However, following publication on 17 December 2002 of the Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement" (Cm 5677), identifying and remedying gaps in our information on pension accumulation and savings behaviour is a priority for the Department.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people who have to make a claim for the 2002–03 winter fuel payment before the 30 March cut-off date; and of that number how many have yet to do so. [99955]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 607W.

  However, further to that answer, I would like to clarify the figures provided. They included written requests for claim forms. As at 28 February 2003, some 205,000 actual claim forms had been received.

  It is up to an individual to decide whether or not to make a claim.

HEALTH

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list general practitioners who have piloted the CANTAB-PAL test technology for detecting early onset of Alzheimer's disease; [100422]

  (2) if he will publish the findings of the Technologies Advisory Group study into the CANTAB-PAL test technology for detecting early onset of Alzheimer's in November 2001; [100423]

  (3) on what basis the Technologies Advisory Group in his Department declined to recommend the CANTAB-PAL test technology for detecting early onset of Alzheimer's disease for assessment by NICE; [100421]

  (4) how many people are diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in each PCT area; [100547]

  (5) what tests are available through the NHS to detect early onset of Alzheimer's disease. [100420]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not available about the number of people diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in each primary care trust area. Research shows that about 5 per cent. of the population over 65 has dementia, and Alzheimer's disease causes about 60 per cent. of cases of dementia.

  A number of different tests are available to detect the early onset of Alzheimer's disease. Consideration is being given to the possibility of guidance on methods for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, including the CANTAB-PAL test, in the context of a possible National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline on management of dementia generally. Decisions on topics to be referred to NICE are taken by Ministers on the basis of advice from the Advisory Committee for Topic Selection (previously the Technologies Advisory Group). Final decisions will be announced shortly.

  Ambulance Call-outs
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of ambulance call outs to people over the age of(a) 50 and (b) 65 in each of the last five years for which figures are available have been as a result of a fall. [100112]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Area Child Protection Committees
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 586W, on ACPCs, which area child protection committees are complying with his guidance. [100536]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with the Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust
  97W
  on (a) improving the level of cleanliness, (b) ensuring syringes, needles and other equipment are kept in a hygienic state, (c) the safe storage of needles and syringes in paediatric areas, (d) the need to keep refrigerators used to store drugs locked, (e) the proper storage of equipment and (f) the quality of food provided for patients at Oldchurch Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [99402]

  Mr. Hutton
  Oldchurch hospital was inspected by a patient environment action team (PEAT) on 21 February 2002. Overall standards of both the environment and food were assessed as acceptable and the hospital has been awarded Amber status. A further inspection will be undertaken as part of the current PEAT assessment programme.

  Additionally, all hospitals are required to meet the national cleaning standards for the National Health Service, issued in 2001. These standards are currently being revised to include equipment frequently cleaned by nursing staff such as diagnostic equipment, trolleys and drip stands.

  It is the responsibility of individual trusts to ensure the safety of items such as needles, syringes and drugs and that they are stored in a safe and hygienic environment and in line with the Controls Assurance standards and related regulations. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 lays a duty on employers to ensure the health and safety of their staff. Under this statute NHS employers are required to carry out a risk assessment in relation to the safe storage, use and disposal of all sharps and needles. Responsibility for ensuring compliance with the legislation lies with the Health and Safety Executive.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 26W, on care homes, whether the statutory instrument will be (a) negative and (b) affirmative. [100139]

  Jacqui Smith
  The relevant procedure for the necessary statutory instrument will be the negative procedure.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had recently with the health authorities in the London Borough of Havering regarding residential care home provision. [99745]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have had no recent discussions with the health authorities in the London Borough of Havering. The council is the lead agency for commissioning residential care provision. The council will work in partnership with local primary care trusts in determining the local need for this type of care.

  Consultant Rheumatologists
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the number of consultant rheumatologists; and if he will make a statement. [101658]
  98W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: Between 1997 and 2002, the number of consultants in rheumatology has increased by 90, or 26.5 per cent., from 340 in September 1997 to 430 in March 2002.

  We are also increasing specialist registrars (SpR) numbers. For 2003–04, trusts will have scope to create up to 40 locally funded SpR training opportunities in the specialty.

  Current workforce projections indicate that by September 2004, there will be around 80 additional trained specialists in rheumatology over September 2000 levels.

  Correspondence
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter to him from Mr. Ken Mack of Wrexham dated 14 September 2002. [101143]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 6 March.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the details of the preliminary application process for foundation trusts, as sent to potential applicants for foundation status. [100845]

  Mr. Hutton
  Details of the preliminary application process sent to potential applicants for national health service foundation trust status have been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations, not currently part of the NHS, will be eligible to apply for NHS foundation trust status. [100846]

  Mr. Hutton
  Forthcoming legislation will set out the process for the Independent Regulator for national health service foundation trusts to consider applications for NHS foundation trust status.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what ways foundation trusts will be freed from detailed performance management, as stated in paragraph 1.12 of 'A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts'; and if this refers also to three star trusts without foundation status. [100849]

  Mr. Hutton
  The proposed arrangements for national health service foundation trusts are explained in paragraph 4.1 of 'A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts'.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he intends to ensure that foundation trust board of governors will represent the full range of members' interests. [100850]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our policy on the election of the Board of Governors is explained in paragraph 2.25 of 'A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts'. Details will be included in forthcoming legislation.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he intends to ensure that foundation trusts use their freedoms to give staff unlimited pay bonuses in a way which does not undermine other providers in the local health economy. [100851]
  99W
  Mr. Hutton
  The exercise of any of the proposed freedoms which national health service foundation trusts will enjoy will be a matter for the trust to decide, subject to the role of the Independent Regulator. Details will be set out in forthcoming legislation.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers a board of governors will have in relation to the management of foundation hospitals. [100847]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our policy on the powers and duties of the board of governors of a national health service foundation trust is explained in paragraphs 2.32 and 2.33 of 'A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts'. Details will be included in forthcoming legislation.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the requirements to be included in the licences of foundation hospitals. [100848]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our policy is explained in paragraph 3.4 of 'A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts'. Details will be included in forthcoming legislation.

  Unrestricted Principles and Equivalents (UPEs)1 by Age Band for Castlepoint and Rochford, Maldon and South Chelmsford and Southend on Sea Primary Care Trusts: As at 31 March 2002

  Number (headcount)

  Primary Care Trust

  PCT code

  Total UPEs

  Of which: Under 30

  30–34

  35–39

  40–45

  45–49

  England total Of which:

  27,956

  285

  2,441

  4,698

  5,774

  5,140

  Castlepoint and Rochford PCT

  5JP

  75

  0

  1

  8

  14

  14

  Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT

  5GL

  40

  0

  2

  3

  11

  8

  Southend on Sea PCT

  5AK

  83

  0

  2

  7

  11

  16

  Numbers (headcount)

  Of which:

  of which:

  Primary Care Trust

  PCT code

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70+

  aged 69

  England total

  4,525

  3,281

  1,358

  454

  0

  56

  Of which:

  Castlepoint and Rochford PCT

  5JP

  17

  13

  3

  5

  0

  1

  Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT

  5GL

  9

  3

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Southend on Sea PCT

  5AK

  21

  15

  8

  3

  0

  0

  1 Unrestricted principles and equivalents include GMS unrestricted principles, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPS.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Unrestricted Principles and Equivalents (UPEs)1 Leavers by Age Band for Castlepoint and Rochford, Maldon and South Chelmsford and Southend on Sea Primary Care Trusts: October 1999/September 2000 to September 2001/March 2002

  Number (headcount)

  Primary Care Trust

  PCT code

  Total UPEs

  Of which: Under 30

  30–34

  35–39

  40–45

  45–49

  30 September 2001–31 March 2002

  England total

  687

  4

  71

  101

  81

  46

  Of which:

  Castlepoint and Rochford PCT

  5JP

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT

  5GL

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Southend on Sea PCT

  5AK

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  30 September 2000–30 September 20012

  England total

  1,313

  11

  124

  178

  137

  93

  Of which:

  Castlepoint and Rochford PCT

  5JP

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT

  5GL

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southend on Sea PCT

  5AK

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which trade unions he has met to discuss his proposals for foundation trusts; when the meetings were; and which unions have expressed support for his proposals. [101661]

  Mr. Hutton
  I discuss a range of issues at the regular meetings that I have with trade unions.

  GPs
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are expected to retire in the next 12 months in(a) the Southend PCT area,(b) the Rochford and Castle Point PCT area and (c) the Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT area; and if he will make a statement. [101935]

  Mr. Lammy
  The local primary care trusts are aware of this problem and are taking steps to improve the situation.

  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  101W

  Unrestricted Principles and Equivalents (UPEs)1 Leavers by Age Band for Castlepoint and Rochford, Maldon and South Chelmsford and Southend on Sea Primary Care Trusts: October 1999/September 2000 to September 2001/March 2002

  Number (headcount)

  Primary Care Trust

  PCT code

  Total UPEs

  Of which: Under 30

  30–34

  35–39

  40–45

  45–49

  31 October 1999–30 September 20002

  England total

  1,090

  14

  92

  149

  89

  73

  Of which:

  Castlepoint and Rochford PCT

  5JP

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT

  5GL

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southend on Sea PCT

  5AK

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Number (headcount)

  Primary Care Trust

  PCT Code

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70+

  30 September 2001–31 March 2002

  England total

  88

  138

  95

  63

  0

  Of which:

  Castlepoint and Rochford PCT

  5GL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT

  5GL

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Southend on Sea PCT

  5GL

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  30 September 2000–30 September 20012

  England total

  125

  270

  239

  136

  0

  Of which:

  Castelpoint and Rechford PCT

  5JP

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT

  5GL

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southend on Sea PCT

  5AK

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31 October 1999–30 September 20022

  England total

  132

  210

  196

  135

  0

  Of which:

  Castlepoint and Rochford PCT

  5JP

  2

  2

  2

  1

  0

  Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT

  5AK

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southend n Sea PCT

  5GL

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Unrestricted Principles and Equivalents include GMS Unrestricted Principles. PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  2 Data for Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT and Southend on Sea PCT is not available for these years.

  Notes:

  1. Leavers are calculated by comparing successive censuses.

  2. September 2001–March 2002 leavers only refers to a six month comparison and are not directly comparable with 1999–2000 and 2000–01 which are based on a 12 month comparison.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Spanish GPs have(a) signed contracts agreeing to work and (b) commenced work in the Southend PCT area; and if he will make a statement on recent progress in recruitment of Spanish GPs. [101934]

  Mr. Hutton
  10 Spanish general practitioners have been appointed into the Southend Primary Care Trust area. Eight contracts have already been signed and a further two are in the process of being signed.

  Five GPs will commence at the end of April with the further five starting three months later.

  Health Services (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has provided guidance to PCTs on improving(a) the treatment of enuresis and (b) paediatric continence services. [100419]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has provided grant aid to the enuresis resource and information centre, which produces guidance on paediatric continence services. Common childhood conditions, including enuresis and 102W
  paediatric continence, will be considered under the forthcoming national service framework (NSF) for children, young people and maternity services.

  Good Practice in Continence Services was issued by the Department in April 2000 and provides guidance to primary care trusts (PCTs) on continence services. This includes that PCTs should have specialist continence services in place, which provide patients with an individual assessment of their needs. This assessment should include the provision of continence products to any patient who needs them.

  Continence also features in the NSF for older people standard two—person centred care. The milestone for achievement of integrated continence service provision is 2004, by which time it is expected that "all local health and social care systems should have established an integrated continence service".

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-UK passport holding children are being looked after by Social Services. [100471]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.
  103W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the mental health needs of children at risk. [100494]

  Jacqui Smith
  No specific discussions have taken place. However, the Department has made a significant investment in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) over the last three years, £105 million to 31 March 2003, and is committed to achieving radical improvements in the quality and quantity of CAMHS. Our current public service agreement target provides for an expansion of the service by at least 10 per cent, per year for the next three years, leading to a comprehensive service, able to respond to all children with mental health needs in all areas, by 2006. This development is underpinned by over £250 million of additional funding, including £140 million for local authorities. The children's national service framework will set out the standards and milestones for improvements in CAMHS services for all children, including those at risk.

  Laser Eye Surgery
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further plans he has for regulating laser eye surgery. [99329]

  Mr. Lammy
  From 1 April 2002, independent health care establishments that provide treatment with Class 313 lasers, except where these are used by or under the supervision of health professionals, and all independent health care establishments that provide treatment with Class 4 lasers have been regulated under the Care Standards Act 2000 by the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC).

  Independent providers of all Class 4 laser treatment are required to comply with regulations made under the Act. There are also two sets of national minimum standards: core standards, which apply to all independent health care providers, and service-specific standards for each type of service provided, including laser treatment. In deciding whether an establishment has complied with regulations, the NCSC must take into account whether it meets the national minimum standards.

  Midwifery
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students are undertaking training to become a midwife(a) by direct training and (b) post-registration at (i) diploma and (ii) degree level; what proportion of students (A) completed and (B) did not complete their studies in the last three years; which institutions offer midwifery courses; and what the sources are of the information used to answer this question. [100983]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of students in training to become a midwife is shown in table 1.
  104W

  Table 1: Number of students on pre and post-registration midwifery courses 2001–02 whole-time equivalents

  Whole-time equivalents

  Student population

  Midwifery Total

  3,324

  Pre-registration courses

  2,274

  Diploma

  1,288

  Degree

  986

  Post-registration courses

  1,050

  Diploma

  1,050

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical education and training business planning 2002–03

  Attrition data for midwifery students are shown in table 2 for each of the last three complete years available. The years refer to the cohort for that year and figures include all types of course.

  Table 2: Midwives training progress

  Percentage

  Eligible to register1

  Discontinued2

  Interrupted3

  Active4

  1995–96

  76.9

  17.9

  0.5

  4.7

  1996–97

  73.0

  21.8

  1.5

  3.7

  1997–98

  76.3

  17.1

  0.9

  5.7

  1 Those midwives who have completed their training and are eligible to register with the English National Board and therefore join the NHS.

  2Students who have left the course.

  3Students whose course has been interrupted (for individual reasons) and may continue at a later date

  4Students who are still in training.

  Source:

  English National Board for Nursing

  The following institutions offer midwifery courses.

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  Bournemouth University

  The University of Bradford

  University of the West of England, Bristol

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  University of Central England in Birmingham

  University of Central Lancashire

  Chester (A College of The University of Liverpool)

  City University

  Coventry University

  De Montfort University

  University of East Anglia

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education (A higher education institution accredited by Lancaster

  University)

  University of Greenwich

  The University of Huddersfield

  105W

  The University of Hull

  Keele University

  University of Leeds

  Liverpool John Moores University

  University of Luton

  Middlesex University

  University College Northampton

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  Oxford Brookes University

  University of Plymouth

  The University of Salford

  St Martin's College, Lancaster: Ambleside: Carlisle (an Accredited College of the University of Lancaster)

  University of Southampton

  Staffordshire University

  The University of Stirling

  Suffolk College An Accredited College of The University of East Anglia

  University of Surrey

  University of Wales Swansea

  University of Teesside

  Thames Valley University

  University of Wolverhampton

  University College Worcester

  Source:

  University and College Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Hospital and Community Health Services Medical and Dental Staff

  As at 30 September each year

  Numbers

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  North West London Hospitals NHS trust

  -

  -

  530

  540

  560

  Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  190

  190

  -

  -

  -

  Northwick Park and St. Marks NHS Trust Trust

  290

  310

  -

  -

  -

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  HNS hospital and community health services (HCHS) qualified nursing midwifery and health visiting staff and physiotherapists within the specified organisations

  As at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  All staff

  Qualified nursing, midwidery and health visiting staff

  1,356

  1,371

  1,345

  1,426

  1,643

  Physiotherapists

  80

  75

  74

  84

  86

  North West London Hospital NHS Trust

  Qualified nursing, midwidery and health visiting staff

  -

  -

  1,345

  1,426

  1,643

  Physiotherapists

  -

  -

  74

  84

  86

  Central Middlesex Hospital Trust

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  459

  462

  -

  -

  -

  Physiotherapists

  26

  25

  -

  -

  -

  Northwick park and St. Marks NHS Trust

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  897

  909

  -

  -

  -

  Physiotherapists

  54

  50

  -

  -

  -

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  - Not applicable

  Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust merged with Northwick Park St. Marks NHS Trust in 1999 form North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) professions ancillary to medicine, (d) nursing auxiliaries and (e) hospital porters, cleaners and cooks were employed in the NHS (i) in each health authority area in the North East in 1996 and (ii) in each PCT area in the North East at the most recent date for which figures are available. [100561]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]: The requested information has been placed in the Library.

  Northwick Park Hospital
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) physiotherapists worked at Northwick Park Hospital in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [100595]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is collected by National Health Service trust and not by individual hospital. Northwick Park Hospital was part of Northwick Park and St Marks NHS Trust until 1999, when the trust merged with Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust to form North WestLondon Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Figures for Northwick Park & St. Marks NHS Trust for 1997 to 1998 and North West London Hospitals NHS Trust for 1999 to 2001 are shown in the tables.

  Prisoner Treatment (Chorley and Preston)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Home Office regarding the provision of extra resources to Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust in order to treat prisoners at Chorley and Preston hospitals. [99951]

  Jacqui Smith
  Responsibility for meeting the costs of prisoners' medical treatment in hospital lies entirely with the National Health Service. Allocations made to primary care trusts include provision for the costs of such services.

  Protection of Children Act Database
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often the PoCA database is updated and maintained; and what checks are in place to ensure information is accurate. [100147]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Protection of Children Act list database is updated on a daily basis, Monday to Friday. The information on the database is supplied by referring organisations and, where possible, checked with the individuals concerned.

  University College Hospital
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from(a) local institutions and (b) members of the public concerning the conversion of University College Hospital into a Foundation Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [100527]

  Mr. Hutton
  No representations have been received from local institutions or members of the public concerning University College Hospital National Health Service Trust becoming a NHS foundation trust.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fire Services
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will initiate a national attendance standard relating to speed response and weight attack for each Fire Brigade; [99610]

  (2) when the Standards of Fire Cover were last reviewed. [99634]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The current national standards of fire cover provide that the country should be divided into four main categories of fire risk, according to the nature of the premises, and that, in response to fires in a particular risk category area, a predetermined number of firefighting appliances will attend within a specified time. The national standards are under review. In the light of the recommendation of the Independent Review of the Fire Service, chaired by Professor Sir George Bain, that the Government should issue guidance to implement a new risk-based approach to fire cover, we are drawing up, for consultation, draft guidance on a new approach. This guidance would provide a national framework, against which fire authorities would prepare local integrated risk management plans, responding to locally identified needs.
  108W
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether prior to the publication of the Bain report, drafts of the report were shown to(a) the Government, (b) the Fire Services National Employers and (c) other organisations. [99083]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The work of the Review was carried out independently and objectively. Draft passages were shown to some people and organisations, including government officials who had provided evidence to the review to confirm points of factual accuracy. However no-one, apart from members of the review, its secretariat and the publishers saw the full text before the report was published on 16 December 2002.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2003,Official Report, column 865W, on the firefighters' dispute, (1) what the total cost was to firefighter employers in (a) lost working days and (b) lost man hours of industrial action taken by firefighters in each of the last 14 months; [101179]

  (2) how many firefighters went on strike on (a) each of the 10 days of industrial action in November 2002 and (b) the day of industrial action in January 2003; [101180]

  (3) how many (a) man hours and (b) working days were lost to industrial action by firefighters in each of the last 14 months. [101178]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are two shifts in a 24-hour period. 20 shifts were severely affected by strike action by members of the Fire Brigades Union in November 2002, six in January 2003 and four in February 2003.

  Information on the exact number of man hours lost or firefighters on strike is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he has consulted the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council on the proposal to remove his functions under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. [100714]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No. The Bain Review, which recommended repeal or amendment of section 19, invited evidence from all major stakeholders in the fire service, including those which are members of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account he has taken of the Central Fire Brigades Council's Task Group report, The Fire Cover Review, drawing up the proposal to remove his functions under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. [100715]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The work of the Task Group was taken into account by the Independent Review of the Fire Service, which recommended the urgent introduction of a risk-based approach to fire cover and the repeal of most of the provisions of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what procedure the Government will use if the Secretary of State's powers under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 are removed, to ensure that fire service emergency cover is maintained to a level deemed satisfactory by HM Fire Service Inspectorate. [100717]
  109W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The repeal of section 19 will not alter the statutory responsibility that rests locally with fire authorities to provide fire services. Fire authorities will have guidance on the proposed new approach to fire cover. In addition, they have a general duty, under the Best Value provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, to secure continuous improvement in the way their functions are exercised, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and they must consult, amongst others, representatives of persons who use are likely to use their services. The Best Value framework, which is backed up by an inspection regime, gives my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister intervention powers if an authority is failing to comply with its obligations.

  High Hedges Bill
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will produce(a) a regulatory impact assessment and (b) an assessment of the burden on local government in respect of the proposals in the High Hedges Bill (Lords). [102132]

  Mr. McNulty
  When the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill is printed, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will publish a full regulatory impact assessment. This includes an assessment of the burden on local government in respect of the proposals in the Bill. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website.

  Inspection Officers (Local Authorities)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) health and safety officers, (b) trading standards officers, (c) environmental health officers,(d) road safety officers, (e) housing inspectors and (f) planning officers have been employed by local authorities in each year since 1997. [100157]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I understand that the Employers Organisation hold some data and I will write to the hon. Member with further details. I will place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Local Authority Delegations
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those local authority delegations which met

  Standard spending assessments/formula spending shares

  Education

  PSS

  Fire

  Highway Maintenance

  EPCS

  Capital

  Total

  Formula Grant (ie RSG plus NNDR)

  Adjusted 1995–96

  43.621

  17.456

  2.971

  3.742

  17.635

  7.874

  93.298

  N/a

  1996–97

  45.138

  17.309

  3.043

  3.624

  17.940

  7.986

  95.041

  69.899

  Percentage change

  3.5

  -0.8

  2.4

  -3.2

  1.7

  1.4

  1.9

  N/a

  Adjusted 1996-97

  44.229

  18.605

  3.043

  3.624

  17.940

  7.986

  95.428

  N/a

  1997–98

  46.316

  18.798

  3.118

  3.604

  17.753

  7.554

  97.143

  70.681

  Percentage change

  4.7

  1.0

  2.5

  -0.5

  -1.0

  -5.4

  1.8

  N/a

  Adjusted 1997–98

  47.225

  19.675

  3.118

  3.604

  18.963

  6.344

  98.929

  N/a

  1998–99

  50.795

  20.734

  3.395

  3.527

  18.776

  5.632

  102.858

  74.372

  Percentage change

  7.6

  5.4

  8.9

  -2.1

  -1.0

  -11.2

  4.0

  N/a

  1999–2000

  53.189

  21.589

  3.586

  3.601

  19.771

  6.000

  107.736

  77.616

  Percentage change

  4.7

  4.1

  5.6

  2.1

  5.3

  6.5

  4.7

  4.4

  110W
  him or his Department's Ministers between May 2002 and January 2003; which hon. Member accompanied each such delegation; and what subjects were discussed. [98863]

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

  Local Government Bill
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many clauses were(a) fully, (b) partially and (c) not debated during the Committee Stage of the Local Government Bill. [101871]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the course of its 14 sittings, the Standing Committee of the Local Government Bill:

  (a) fully debated 106 clauses (including 15 new clauses) and two schedules;

  (b) partially debated one clause; and

  (c) did not debate 21 (including four new) clauses and five schedules.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Standard Spending Assessment was for each year between 1996–97 and 2002–03 and the Formula Standard Spend for 2002–03 and 2003–04 and the percentage change in each year from the previous year, for the Isle of Wight(a) in total and (b) broken down by major funding blocks; and what the aggregate external finance was for each year. [101556]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Over the period requested there have been many changes in the functions and funding of services to local government. To enable a like-for-like comparison between years, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister calculates adjusted Standard Spending Assessment (SSAs) and grants. The percentage change figures have been calculated on the basis of these like-for-like comparisons.

  Until the introduction of Central Support Protection Grant in 1999–2000, there was no need to calculate grant on a like-for-like basis, and for this reason grant comparisons in the years 1996–97 to 1998–99 are not available. There were no changes in funding and function between 1998–99 and 1999–2000 that needed reflecting in adjusted SSAs or grants for 1998–99 to allow a like-for-like comparison; the actual 1998–99 values have therefore been used in this case.
  111W

  Standard spending assessments/formula spending shares

  Education

  PSS

  Fire

  Highway Maintenance

  EPCS

  Capital

  Total

  Formula Grant (ie RSG plus NNDR)

  Adjusted 1999–2000

  53.189

  21.589

  3.586

  3.601

  19.771

  6.000

  107.736

  77.616

  2000–01

  57.247

  23.068

  3.784

  3.740

  20.500

  6.657

  114.996

  83.135

  Percentage change

  7.6

  6.9

  5.5

  3.9

  3.7

  11.0

  6.7

  7.1

  Adjusted 2000–01

  57.502

  22.763

  3.784

  3.740

  20.421

  6.656

  114.867

  83.016

  2001–02

  60.928

  24.124

  3.968

  4.026

  21.532

  7.721

  122.299

  88.412

  Percentage change

  6.0

  6.0

  4.8

  7.7

  5.4

  16.0

  6.5

  6.5

  Adjusted 2001–02

  55.437

  23.766

  3.968

  4.026

  21.562

  7.748

  116.507

  82.658

  2002–03

  59.156

  25.137

  4.148

  4.135

  22.622

  8.722

  123.920

  88.231

  Percentage change

  6.7

  5.8

  4.6

  2.7

  4.9

  12.6

  6.4

  6.7

  2002–03 FSS

  61.840

  27.418

  4.676

  4.050

  27.492

  8.571

  134.048

  91.394

  Comparitors 2003–04 FSSs

  64.834

  29.471

  5.373

  3.818

  30.612

  10.114

  144.221

  96.318

  Percentage change

  4.8

  7.5

  14.9

  -5.7

  11.3

  18.0

  7.6

  5.4

  Ordnance Survey Maps
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent guidance has been issued by his Department on the symbols and markings included on Ordnance Survey maps; what assessment he has made of the Ordnance Survey's decision to omit the traditional symbols and markings indicating(a) civil and parish boundaries, (b) national park boundaries and (c) churches from future editions of its maps; and if he will make a statement. [101719]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ordnance Survey, before making decisions about what is depicted on its maps, takes full account of the needs of its customers and other stakeholders. To this end, it consults widely before implementing any change.

  Following Parliament's decision to widen public access to the English and Welsh countryside under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW), Ordnance Survey has concluded that this access land should be shown on the 1:25 000 Explorer series, which is designed specifically for use during outdoor activities.

  The way the access land is shown will be crucial in helping the Open Access initiative to be implemented successfully. Clarity will be vital in minimising any misunderstanding between users of the countryside and landowners. There is much additional information to be added to the mapping. Therefore, to avoid clutter and ensure clarity, it will be necessary to take off some existing information.

  Consultation and research among users indicates that the removal of the national park, civil and parish boundaries while adding the access land, significantly improves clarity and helps avoid confusion on the ground. National Park boundaries will remain on the cover diagram of each Explorer and on the printed and data versions of the OS Landranger series. They are also freely available as part of the Get-a-Map service on the Ordnance Survey website.

  Ordnance Survey has also consulted users on the proposed changes to symbols for places of worship on both Explorer and the 1:50 000 OS Landranger Map series. In this regard, the primary consideration has been the navigational importance of buildings with towers, spires, domes or minarets. These will continue to be marked with the familiar symbols. Other buildings that are places of worship will continue to appear on the
  112W
  maps, but without reference to their religious or cultural significance. Final decisions about the proposed changes will be made within the next few weeks and Ordnance Survey will take into account all points of view.

  Planning
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether all planning considerations of individual small-scale applications will be removed from local councils under his plans for regional assemblies. [101663]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local councils will continue to retain all existing powers of development control and none will be transferred to regional bodies now or in the future.

  Poll Tax
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much uncollected poll tax revenue remains outstanding in the UK, broken down by local authority. [101512]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not currently collect information on the level of community charge (or poll tax) arrears owed to English billing authorities. It is estimated that the arrears in England totalled £185 million at 1 April 2001. This estimate is based on information supplied to the Chartered Institute of Public Accountancy on its revenue collection statistics return and on information on amounts of community charge received, which is collected from billing authorities on the QRC4 return.

  After discussions with local government, The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will, however, be collecting information from English billing authorities on the level of community charge arrears as at 31 March 2003 on the QRC4 return for 2002–03.

  Figures for Wales and Scotland are a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Parliament respectively. The community charge never existed in Northern Ireland.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the results of his regional government soundings exercise broken down by English region. [101906]
  113W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asked for responses by 3 March 2003 on the level of regional interest in holding a referendum for an elected regional assembly. We are now evaluating the responses and will announce our decisions after the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Schools Funding
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the interaction between changes in aggregate external finance to local authorities and passporting of schools funding; and what arrangements are in place to ensure that the latter is not undermined by the former. [102033]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Aggregate external finance is distributed by formula (Formula Spending Share or FSS) and is not ring-fenced. All authorities with education responsibilities receive at least 3.5 per cent. more formula grant for 2003–04 than they did for 2002–03, on a like-for-like basis. Setting budgets is a matter for local authorities. The Government encourage them to increase spending on schools by an amount equal to the increase in their education FSS. Authorities who have difficulty with this are encouraged to discuss with the Department for Education and Skills. Increases in education FSS were themselves constrained between 3.2 per cent. and 7 per cent. on a per pupil basis, by means of a formula floor and ceiling.

  Sales of stock by social landlords* to sitting tenants and others: London 1997–98 to 2001–02

  1997–98

  1998–99

  LAs to

  Las to

  Local authority

  Sitting tenants

  Others

  RSLs to Sitting tenants

  Sitting tenants

  Others

  RSLs to Sitting tenants

  LAs to Sitting tenants

  Barking and Dagenham

  433

  n/a

  0

  393

  0

  0

  762

  Barnet

  195

  0

  0

  260

  0

  0

  287

  Bexley

  183

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Brent

  214

  n/a

  3

  184

  n/a

  1

  265

  Bromley

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  37

  0

  Camden

  514

  n/a

  0

  505

  n/a

  0

  560

  City of London

  26

  36

  1

  58

  21

  0

  81

  Croydon

  164

  n/a

  1

  156

  n/a

  1

  181

  Ealing

  205

  0

  6

  218

  0

  10

  354

  Enfield

  172

  0

  1

  163

  0

  0

  327

  Greenwich

  392

  0

  2

  373

  0

  0

  515

  Hackney

  222

  0

  0

  337

  n/a

  0

  493

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  141

  4

  1

  189

  1

  0

  240

  Haringey

  262

  0

  0

  284

  0

  1

  442

  Harrow

  85

  0

  0

  97

  0

  0

  134

  Havering

  183

  0

  0

  209

  n/a

  0

  307

  Hillingdon

  231

  0

  3

  287

  0

  0

  266

  Hounslow

  192

  0

  14

  290

  0

  5

  335

  Islington

  339

  0

  0

  393

  0

  0

  325

  Kensington and Chelsea

  103

  0

  1

  95

  0

  0

  147

  Kingston upon Thames

  65

  0

  0

  55

  0

  2

  98

  Lambeth

  387

  0

  0

  454

  n/a

  0

  644

  Lewisham

  365

  15

  3

  524

  n/a

  0

  634

  Merton

  120

  0

  0

  173

  0

  4

  177

  Newham

  286

  n/a

  0

  300

  0

  0

  430

  Redbridge

  61

  0

  0

  85

  0

  0

  108

  Richmond upon Thames

  86

  0

  1

  92

  0

  0

  225

  Southwark

  344

  n/a

  0

  439

  0

  0

  653

  Sutton

  141

  n/a

  0

  124

  n/a

  0

  214

  Social Housing Grant
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact he estimates the abolition of Local Authority Social Housing Grant will have on Torbay UA; and if he will make a statement. [100250]

  Mr. McNulty
  LASHG was an unfair funding mechanism that did not allocate funds to areas of greatest need, consistently under-spent nationally, and gave unfair advantage to debt-free local authorities.

  As part of the measures outlined in "Sustainable Communities: building for the future", The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has decided to abolish LASHG to allow a more strategic use of resources. The change is to take effect from 1 April 2003. I announced the transitional arrangements on 5 March 2003, Official Report, column 82WS.

  Torbay UA has submitted information to the Government Office for the South West indicating that it has a total Local Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG) commitment of 2,181,500 for 2003–04 and 2004–05. Full details of the transitional arrangements have yet to be finalised.

  Social Landlord Properties
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) social and (b) regulated social landlord properties in each London borough were sold (i) to sitting tenants and (ii) on the open market in each of the last five years. [100273]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information reported by local authorities and registered social landlords is as follows:
  115W

  Sales of stock by social landlords* to sitting tenants and others: London 1997–98 to 2001–02

  1997–98

  1998–99

  LAs to

  LAs to

  Local authority

  Sitting tenants

  Others

  RSLs to Sitting tenants

  Sitting tenants

  Others

  RSLs to Sitting tenants

  LAs to Sitting tenants

  Tower Hamlets

  465

  n/a

  0

  641

  n/a

  0

  815

  Waltham Forest

  192

  0

  0

  190

  0

  0

  289

  Wandsworth

  240

  214

  0

  267

  n/a

  0

  514

  Westminster

  164

  n/a

  0

  270

  0

  0

  403

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  20001–02

  RSLs to

  RSLs to

  Local authority

  Others

  Sitting tenants

  Sitting tenants

  LAs to Others

  Sitting tenants

  Sitting tenants

  LAs to others

  RSLs to Sitting tenants

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  527 (3)

  n/a

  0

  374 (3)

  n/a

  0

  Barnet

  n/a

  4

  252

  0

  0

  169

  0

  0

  Bexley

  0

  74

  0

  0

  6

  0 (3)

  n/a

  1

  Brent

  0

  0

  156 (3)

  n/a

  1

  159

  0

  0

  Bromley

  n/a

  60

  0

  0

  52

  0 (2)

  n/a

  58

  Camden

  n/a

  0

  760

  n/a

  0

  671

  n/a

  0

  City of London

  36

  0

  50

  15

  0

  39

  15

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  249

  0

  0

  259

  0

  0

  Ealing

  0

  2

  330

  0

  0

  309

  0

  4

  Enfield

  0

  0

  216

  0

  0

  210

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  n/a

  0

  518

  0

  2

  470

  0

  0

  Hackney

  n/a

  10

  764

  0

  17

  373 (3)

  n/a

  2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  0

  380

  0

  0

  221

  0

  0

  Haringey

  0

  0

  239 (2)

  n/a

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  Harrow

  0

  0

  88

  0

  0

  88

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  273

  n/a

  0

  219

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  n/a

  1

  231

  n/a

  0

  163

  0

  1

  Hounslow

  0

  16

  283

  0

  4

  142(3)

  n/a

  1

  Islington

  n/a

  4

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  844

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  108

  0

  0

  42

  n/a

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  51

  0

  0

  32

  0

  1

  Lambeth

  n/a

  0

  669 (3)

  n/a

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  19

  Lewisham

  n/a

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  Merton

  0

  8

  164 (3)

  n/a

  4

  165

  0

  7

  Newham

  n/a

  0

  272 (2)

  n/a

  0

  611

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  n/a

  1

  129

  0

  0

  101

  0

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  33 (2)

  n/a

  0

  0 (2)

  N/a

  3

  Southwark

  0

  0

  819

  0

  0

  943

  0

  0

  Sutton

  n/a

  7

  146

  3

  0

  130

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  n/a

  71

  1,074

  0

  18

  1,007

  2

  41

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  244

  0

  0

  188

  1

  0

  Wandsworth

  n/a

  0

  333

  115

  0

  149(3)

  N/a

  0

  Westminster

  8

  0

  449

  6

  1

  220

  2

  0

  * Local authorities (LAs) and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs).

  Notes:

  1. LA sales to sitting tenants include those under Right to Buy (RTB) and similar local schemes, plus Rent to Mortgage (RTM).

  2. Other LA sales include all those to owner-occupiers under Built or Improved for Sale, but exclude transfers to RSLs and a small number of unspecified disposals.

  3. Where reporting is incomplete, the bracketed figures indicate the number of quarters for which complete information was provided.

  4. RSL sales to sitting tenants include RTB, RTM, Preserved RTB (in respect of ex-LA properties), Right to Acquire and Voluntary Purchase Grants.

  5. Data on RSL open market stock disposals are not collected centrally at local authority level.

  Sources:

  1. DETR/DTLR/ODPM Housing Activity return P1B (quarterly); Housing Investment Programme returns (annual).

  2. Housing Corporation Continuous Recording (CORE) returns.

  Spending Formulae
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how, in establishing formula spending share, he measured sparsity in calculating(a) the 'older people' element of the social services formulas, (b) the police formula and (c) the EPCS formula; and in each
  116W
  case (i) what proportion of the relevant aggregate FSS allocation was distributed on the basis of sparsity and (ii) if he will list the authorities which benefited from the sparsity measure in each allocation. [101548]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The sparsity indicator is calculated for each of the blocks as follows.
  117W
  The sum of:

  (i) Two multiplied by the resident population of those enumeration districts within the area of the authority at the 1991 Census with 0.5 or less residents per hectare, divided by the total resident population of the authority, calculated using information from the 1991 Census; and

  (ii) The resident population of those enumeration districts within the area of the authority at the 1991 Census with more than 0.5 but less than or equal to four residents per hectare, divided by the total resident population of the authority, calculated using information from the 1991 Census.

  For the 'older people' element of the social services formula 0.36 per cent. of the aggregate Formula Spending Share (FSS) allocation was distributed via the sparsity indicator; for police 0.15 per cent. was distributed via the sparsity indicator; and for the 'services provided predominantly by non-metropolitan district councils in non-metropolitan areas' element of the Environmental Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) formula 4.22 per cent. was distributed via the sparsity indicator.

  Of the Personal Social Service authorities, only Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth and Southwark did not have at least one enumeration district within their
  118W
  area at the 1991 Census with less than or equal to four residents per hectare; all other PSS authorities benefited from the sparsity indicator.

  All police authorities have at least one enumeration district within their area at the 1991 Census with less than or equal to 4 residents per hectare, and hence all police authorities benefited.

  Of the district-level EPCS authorities, only Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth and Southwark did not have at least one enumeration district within their area at the 1991 Census with less than or equal to four residents per hectare; all other district-level EPCS authorities benefited from the sparsity indicator.

  Standards Board for England
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce a referrals unit for complaints to the Standards Board for England. [101220]

  Mr. Leslie
  This is an operational matter for the Standards Board. I understand that a referrals unit is already in place, with the function of assisting the Board in its consideration of allegations. Provisions in the Local Government Bill will allow the Standards Board flexibility to introduce other arrangements for the efficient handling of misconduct allegations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts 2001– (Erratum)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn)
  Due to an error, the expenditure figures reported in appendix 2 of the Prison Service annual report and accounts for 2001–02 (HC 957) are incorrect.

  Amended expenditure, cost per place and cost per prisoner figures are given in the table.

  Expenditure 2001–02 £

  Cost Per Place £

  Cost Per Prisoner £

  Acklington

  12,306,951

  15,738

  16,459

  Albany

  9,638,824

  21,612

  21,853

  Altcourse

  30,595,345

  49,695

  37,029

  Ashfield

  12,542,677

  30,817

  33,314

  Ashwell

  7,977,359

  16,465

  20,204

  Askham Grange

  2,802,068

  21,029

  22,431

  Aylesbury

  10,900,371

  26,077

  31,466

  Bedford

  8,449,674

  23,819

  20,414

  Belmarsh

  30,948,620

  38,702

  36,608

  Birmingham

  16,696,491

  23,173

  19,839

  Blakenhurst

  9,672,424

  14,950

  11,540

  Blantyre House

  2,490,332

  20,753

  21,315

  Blundeston

  9,982,610

  24,568

  24,074

  Brinsford

  12,069,795

  25,304

  26,767

  Bristol

  17,134,205

  35,063

  29,872

  Brixton

  19,503,711

  29,960

  25,756

  Brockhill

  5,643,993

  34,000

  36,729

  Buckley Hall

  6,696,946

  19,134

  20,469

  Bullingdon

  15,178,114

  19,648

  17,073

  Bullwood Hall

  5,623,916

  31,244

  33,693

  Camp Hill

  10,096,506

  20,991

  19,231

  Canterbury

  6,268,130

  31,657

  21,955

  Cardiff

  13,370,996

  25,521

  20,800

  Castington

  11,168,010

  24,278

  37,740

  Channings Wood

  11,238,889

  18,921

  19,108

  Chelmsford

  11,573,580

  25,834

  24,770

  Coldingley

  7,909,234

  21,338

  21,754

  Cookham Wood

  3,576,878

  29,807

  24,264

  Dartmoor

  14,631,698

  21,438

  24,369

  Deerbolt

  9,711,053

  20,487

  23,968

  Doncaster

  18,369,239

  23,825

  17,028

  Dorchester

  5,726,272

  33,292

  23,785

  Dover

  6,728,429

  21,292

  33,600

  Downview

  7,158,940

  25,334

  35,572

  Drake Hall

  5,694,213

  18,309

  24,784

  Durham

  22,550,479

  35,290

  32,303

  East Sutton Park

  2,198,632

  23,390

  23,705

  Eastwood Park

  7,352,500

  24,924

  23,403

  Elmley

  15,151,353

  19,858

  16,523

  Erlestoke

  6,191,130

  18,991

  19,398

  Everthorpe

  7,959,428

  18,172

  18,446

  Exeter

  10,282,669

  32,033

  21,467

  Featherstone

  12,549,693

  20,951

  21,337

  Feltham

  24,346,837

  28,915

  37,471

  Ford

  6,271,678

  12,518

  15,260

  Forest Bank

  19,522,324

  24,403

  23,243

  Foston Hall

  5,299,241

  25,611

  27,422

  Frankland

  24,550,210

  37,596

  38,480

  Full Sutton

  23,541,026

  39,040

  39,827

  Garth

  12,879,054

  20,346

  21,016

  2WS

  Expenditure 2001–02 £

  Cost Per Place £

  Cost Per Prisoner £

  Gartree

  8,886,522

  24,280

  31,522

  Glen Parva

  16,615,880

  25,024

  21,642

  Gloucester

  7,417,888

  31,432

  25,869

  Grendon

  11,293,398

  22,177

  25,345

  Guys Marsh

  8,103,303

  16,639

  15,928

  Haslar

  2,847,598

  17,797

  19,526

  Hatfield

  4,116,132

  22,867

  24,428

  Haverigg

  9,638,719

  17,398

  17,955

  Hewell Grange

  3,018,642

  15,681

  18,022

  High Down

  17,266,744

  26,605

  24,374

  Highpoint

  16,860,131

  19,159

  20,056

  Hindley

  13,429,476

  24,935

  30,032

  Hollesley Bay

  12,625,347

  27,269

  37,678

  Holloway

  20,210,798

  39,668

  41,622

  Holme House

  16,789,328

  18,524

  17,891

  Hull

  13,824,391

  23,425

  24,056

  Huntercombe

  9,984,812

  27,736

  30,628

  Kingston

  4,748,471

  24,603

  26,102

  Kirkham

  10,642,725

  18,445

  22,226

  Kirklevington

  2,806,220

  15,335

  16,355

  Lancaster

  5,718,902

  23,829

  25,268

  Lancaster Farms

  11,715,333

  23,620

  23,478

  Latchmere House

  3,052,466

  15,748

  17,842

  Leeds

  23,291,510

  30,015

  18,876

  Leicester

  8,204,348

  37,837

  23,989

  Lewes

  9,985,425

  20,589

  21,672

  Leyhill

  8,585,073

  20,939

  22,592

  Lincoln

  11,655,841

  25,561

  22,666

  Lindholme

  15,386,512

  23,635

  24,941

  Littlehey

  10,376,197

  16,629

  16,653

  Liverpool

  25,565,332

  21,163

  18,957

  Long Lartin

  20,122,537

  33,594

  47,431

  Low Newton

  7,547,572

  30,393

  27,454

  Lowdham Grange

  12,694,649

  25,188

  25,667

  Maidstone

  10,405,357

  18,625

  27,607

  Manchester

  26,037,371

  27,350

  22,245

  Moorland

  15,006,469

  20,279

  19,625

  Morton Hall

  4,821,307

  25,111

  27,265

  Mount

  11,565,509

  16,405

  15,896

  New Hall

  10,405,367

  31,821

  28,731

  North Sea Camp

  3,738,139

  16,763

  19,369

  Northallerton

  5,080,145

  33,385

  26,164

  Norwich

  14,164,851

  25,534

  19,509

  Nottingham

  10,413,672

  23,757

  20,786

  Onley

  13,504,211

  21,100

  24,617

  Parc

  28,811,957

  35,266

  32,237

  Parkhurst

  12,434,863

  25,798

  28,450

  Pentonville

  22,239,323

  24,793

  19,136

  Portland

  11,313,801

  22,097

  23,949

  Preston

  13,192,099

  30,614

  23,816

  Ranby

  12,851,506

  18,012

  17,623

  Reading

  6,761,178

  34,019

  28,700

  Risley

  16,393,281

  19,899

  20,462

  Rochester

  8,790,555

  20,864

  35,686

  Rye Hill

  14,567,327

  24,279

  24,635

  Send

  4,609,307

  20,951

  21,315

  Shepton Mallet

  4,833,094

  25,304

  29,470

  Shrewsbury

  6,518,034

  35,264

  19,762

  Stafford

  10,624,651

  16,945

  17,201

  Standford Hill

  7,308,028

  19,031

  21,106

  Stocken

  9,454,466

  17,004

  16,493

  Stoke Heath

  13,554,911

  22,445

  25,959

  Styal

  10,894,273

  26,442

  25,375

  Sudbury

  7,606,310

  14,712

  15,213

  Swaleside

  13,493,143

  17,953

  17,933

  Swansea

  7,511,933

  30,787

  28,920

  Swinfen Hall

  7,445,594

  23,322

  23,883

  Thorn Cross

  7,359,861

  23,291

  33,671

  Usk

  6,805,526

  27,132

  21,016

  Verne

  9,534,353

  17,272

  16,823

  Wakefield

  19,914,099

  26,695

  35,688

  Wandsworth

  25,450,136

  22,070

  18,735

  Wayland

  9,928,885

  16,014

  15,821

  Wealstun

  10,870,434

  17,200

  17,990

  Weare

  7,340,016

  18,350

  19,478

  Wellingborough

  9,133,034

  17,631

  18,163

  Werrington

  5,058,625

  38,962

  41,778

  3WS

  Expenditure 2001–02 £

  Cost Per Place £

  Cost Per Prisoner £

  Wetherby

  8,594,400

  23,873

  26,438

  Whatton

  4,877,528

  17,736

  18,048

  Whitemoor

  22,611,769

  44,687

  56,837

  Winchester

  11,907,739

  27,125

  20,498

  Wolds

  8,642,518

  24,007

  21,665

  Woodhill

  22,103,665

  32,649

  32,807

  Wormwood Scrubs

  23,256,552

  19,424

  22,778

  Wymott

  14,929,816

  18,455

  18,897

  An erratum to the Prison Service annual report and accounts2001–02 will be placed in the Library.

  Human Trafficking
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I am pleased to announce new measures to support female victims of human trafficking for sexual exploitation in the UK.

  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum (NIA) Act 2002, introduced a new offence that commenced on 10 February 2003 of "trafficking a person for the purpose of controlling him or her in prostitution."

  From today, safe accommodation and a range of services will be provided to support female victims of human trafficking through a non-governmental organisation. A six-month pilot scheme located in London will cater for approximately 25 women, on a rolling basis, who meet the criteria for access to the services, including a willingness to come forward and co-operate with the authorities in the combating of international organised crime that could lead to prosecutions of criminals.

  We will consider, in light of individual circumstances, whether it would be appropriate to allow such victims who have co-operated to remain here. Where they are to return home, we will assist them to do so, providing them with initial counselling, ensuring that they have suitable accommodation to return to, and providing help to enable them to re-integrate into their own community and find employment.

  We are also publishing a new "best practice toolkit" for the police, immigration officers and others who deal with illegal immigrants and trafficking victims. The toolkit will help them to identify victims and to provide practical advice on how to deal with them appropriately.

  The Sexual Offences Bill, introduced into the House of Lords on 28 January 2003 also proposes new comprehensive offences of trafficking for sexual exploitation to replace the stop-gap offence introduced by the NIA Act 2002 of Trafficking in Prostitution. These new offences tackle the movement of people into, within and out of the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and will carry maximum penalties of 14 years imprisonment. The offence relating to trafficking within the UK applies equally to UK nationals trafficked from place to place in the UK, and to foreign nationals brought here and then moved around from place to place within the UK. This is the first time that the trafficking of UK nationals within the UK has been tackled in legislation.
  4WS
  Internationally, we are committed to addressing the issue of trafficking by our involvement with the EU Framework Decision on combating the trafficking of human beings, and the UN protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking. I believe the trafficking provisions in this Bill meet the requirements of the EU decision, and the UN Protocol and indeed go further in that they criminalise trafficking for a sexual offence per se, whereas the protocol specifies it ought to be criminal only in certain circumstances, for example, where forcer, coercion or abduction are involved.

  They also go further than the provisions in the NIA Act in specifying that it will be a criminal offence to traffic someone for the purposes of submitting them to a sex offence, rather than limiting this to trafficking them for the purposes of exploiting their prostitution. This allows us to offer greater protection against all forms of sexual trafficking, for example, for those who are trafficked in order to be sexually assaulted by others where there is no prostitution taking place.

  In addition the Bill introduces new offences to tackle directly the commercial sexual exploitation of children. The activities that the offences cover include buying the sexual services of a child, causing or encouraging a child into commercial sexual exploitation, facilitating the commercial sexual exploitation of a child, and controlling the activities of a child involved in prostitution. The maximum penalties available for these offences will range from seven years to life imprisonment depending upon the nature of the offence committed and the age of the child victim.

  All these provisions together, will set in place a comprehensive framework of robust legislation and improved support that will enable us both to bear down on perpetrators, often organised criminals, and provide a better response to victims.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT

  National Health Service Charges
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy)
  We have today laid before the House regulations to increase National Health Service charges in England from 1 April 2003. There will be a cash increase in the prescription charge of 10p from £6.20 to £6.30 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed.

  The cost of prescription pre-payment certificates will rise to £32.90 for a 4 month certificate and £90.40 for an annual certificate. These offer savings for those needing more than five items in four months or 14 in one year.

  Prescription charges are expected to raise some £446 million for the NHS in 2003–2004.

  Charges for elastic stockings and tights, wigs and fabric supports supplied through the Hospital Service will be increased similarly.
  5WS
  The maximum patient charge for a single course of dental treatment begun on or after 1 April 2003 will increase from £366 to £372.

  The prescription charge increase is the same as in the previous four years and is well below the current level of inflation. The other increases are in line with this percentage increase.

  Optical voucher values will increase overall by 2.5 per cent., to help children, people on low income and certain people with complex sight problems with the cost of spectacles or contact lenses.

  A summary of these changes is given in the table.

  Details of the revised charges and optical voucher values have been placed in the Library.

  NHS charges and optical voucher values in Scotland and Wales are a matter for the devolved Administrations. Whilst the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.
  6WS

  Summary table—new NHS charges from 1 April 2003

  Item

  Charges from 1 April 2002 (£)

  Charges from 1 April 2002 (£)

  Prescription Charge

  6.20

  6.30

  4 months PPC

  32.40

  32.90

  12 months PPC

  89.00

  90.40

  Surgical Bra

  20.90

  21.20

  Spinal/abdominal Support

  31.50

  32.00

  Wig Acrylic

  51.50

  52.30

  Wig Partial Human Hair

  135.90

  138.00

  Wig Full Human Hair

  198.60

  201.70

  Maximum Dental Charge

  366.00

  372.00

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Local Elections Guidance)
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of the guidance that has been issued to civil servants in UK Departments on their role and conduct in the forthcoming election campaigns in Scotland and Wales and the local elections in England.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Prison Population
Lord Janner of Braunstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect the prison population in the United Kingdom to rise during the next five years; if so, by what number and proportion; and what steps they are taking to enable the prison system to cope with any such increase.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government will continue to provide the places necessary to accommodate those sentenced by the courts by providing additional capacity together with other measures, including reforms to the criminal justice system. They recognise that they must provide for a prospective increase in the prison population over the next five years. They have already announced plans which will increase the capacity of the prison estate by more than 3,000 by the year 2005–6.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that our prisons are dangerously overcrowded and are likely to become more so even with the changes that Her Majesty's Government have in mind? Does he accept that the Prison Service is gravely overstressed and overworked? Does he understand that reforms to ensure that prisons are not filled with people who should not be in prison at all but should be on community service are long overdue? In view of the very serious situation, when can we expect really vigorous action?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, whether or not people should go to prison is a matter for the courts. Serious, persistent and dangerous offences will always merit prison sentences. The prison population at the moment is in the region of 72,000. That is not quite up to capacity. We recognise that we must provide more prison places, hence the announcements to which I referred in my main Answer. The question is not whether community sentences are better than custody but rather what is appropriate for the offence and the offender.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the scheme that has operated since 1999 of the National Grid Transco Foundation whereby young offenders are trained while they are in prison to become engineers or forklift truck drivers? That is having a remarkably good effect with only 6 per cent reoffending among the 94 who have been
1102
trained to date. Does the Minister think that that is a desirable scheme to help more people to become useful members of society?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not aware of that scheme but my noble friend Lady Ashton is aware of it and informs me that it is extremely successful. Such schemes that try to help people in prison learn a skill and provide them with the means of getting a job when they leave are extremely good. One of the matters on which the Criminal Justice Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, focuses is to make sure that people in custody receive training that will help them not to reoffend when they leave. However, they need support when they leave custody to try to ensure that that happens.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the rising prison population results in intolerable conditions in our prisons? Will he take into account the anomaly that although the crime rate for certain crimes is falling, the prison population is rising? The latest figures available from the Home Office indicate that the custody rate in Crown Courts for indictable offences rose from 45 to 64 per cent and that the sentence length for adults rose from 21 to 26 per cent. Will the Minister examine where within criminal justice sentencing that anomaly arises?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I indicated, the number of people going to prison has increased. Capacity is also being increased. The work done by the Prison Service in providing tolerable conditions, education and training programmes and anti-offending behaviour programmes is impressive. One should not lose sight of that. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is right to say that, overall, crime has gone down over the past few years. However, the mix of cases going through the courts needs to be looked at to ensure that it is still the case not only that the appropriate people are going to prison but also that the appropriate people are receiving community sentences.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord share the encouragement that many of us feel at the rising number of people who are concerned about the rehabilitative function of the Prison Service? Is he glad, therefore, that the Chaplain General gave the General Synod an account of the number of young people with mental health problems now in prison and that the Chief Inspector of Prisons' meeting at the General Synod was one of the best attended? Does he accept that there is now a strong group in our society who support the Government in finding a larger number of appropriate sentences that can really benefit offenders and restore them to a useful place in society?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords, I am encouraged by that. I am extremely grateful for the support of the right reverend Prelate for real steps to try to reduce reoffending; that is, effective community

1103
sentences but also effective resettlement measures, both within prison and outside the prison gates, particularly in the context of drug-fuelled offending. We know all too well that people who step outside the prison gates without proper support all too readily fall back into the same habits that caused the crime in the first place.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, given that a high proportion of the prison population is made up of reoffenders, what priority are the Government giving to examining the causes of reoffending? Are they winning on that front? Despite the increase in education provision in prisons, when does the Minister think that there will be adequate education provision and psychiatric help in prison?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have sought to examine closely the causes of reoffending. One can never come to a firm conclusion but the Social Exclusion Unit published a report last year in which it addressed the issues that cause most reoffending. I refer particularly to people in custody. As one would expect, the report refers to lack of employment, lack of good housing, lack of connection with family and a connection with drugs and alcohol as issues that cause reoffending. Addressing those issues helps to reduce reoffending. That is what the Social Exclusion Unit report recommends and that is what the Criminal Justice Bill seeks to promote.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, are there sufficient centres in prisons for young women offenders?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the number of places specifically for young offenders, the number of young women—that is, those under 18—in prison is too high, but the figures have gone down. The number of women overall in prison has gone up.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that one of the reasons for the steep rise in the number of women prisoners is the huge numbers of drug mules who are being sentenced to comparatively long sentences of up to seven years' imprisonment? Would the noble and learned Lord consider giving courts the power to award suspended sentences to drug mules, with recommendations for deportation so that they do not appear at our airports again?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is a matter for the courts, which have always taken an extremely serious view of drug mules. They have a variety of powers and have taken the view that long sentences are appropriate. I have no intention of taking a different view.
Lord Acton: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are past allocated time now. We cannot just trundle on with the same Question.

Hospitals: Bed Blocking by EEA Nationals
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my interests as a member of a local authority and chairman of an NHS trust.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Government what action they will take to resolve bed blocking in hospitals arising from Section 54 of and Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, we have acted immediately to review the cases that have been presented to us. The issues raised have highlighted queries in relation to the treatment of EEA nationals. People who have exercised their Community treaty rights are entitled to enjoy the same social advantages as national workers. The same rights apply to members of their families, ex-workers, those who are self-employed or were self-employed and students with a right of residence. We accept that the definition of social advantages under Community treaties should include the provision of community care and other social services. The Department of Health has today issued guidance to local authorities to put it beyond doubt that in such cases community care and related support should be provided. Further work is ongoing to assess the position of those who might fall into the categories that I have described. If further action is required in relation to those individuals, we will act immediately. If required, the legislation could be amended by the order-making provisions set out in paragraph 15(a) of Schedule 3.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. If I understand it, he has probably snatched my question. The point that I wanted to make clear is that under the regulations—Schedule 3 to and Section 54 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act—local authorities were precluded from providing community care for EEA nationals as well as for other categories that are outlined in the definition. The bed blocking that could consequently result in National Health Service hospitals if local authorities were not able to provide that ongoing community care could have been very serious. Is it clear now that all EEA nationals and anyone else in the categories contained in Schedule 3 or Section 54 will be entitled to care in the community, or will those who have resided here for less than 10 years, which is the guidance at the moment, be precluded?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, for the benefit of the rest of the House who may be interested in what this Question is about, it is essentially about the intersect between Section 54 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act on benefit shopping and whether that precluded local authorities from action—providing care to people leaving hospital. It is an important Question.

1105
We have today put out clear guidance from the Social Services Inspectorate that is in line with what I said, making it clear that anyone who has Community treaty rights as a result of working here, being a dependant of someone working here or who is a student is entitled to receive social care under Community treaty rights as distinct from the prohibition in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act.
We also know from discussions with Westminster City Council, which raised the matter, that of the 13 cases to which it referred, 12 are clear to be discharged from hospital and will receive benefit. The one remaining area of uncertainty involves people from another EEA nation who may be in hospital but who have never had treaty rights because they never worked in this country. We are exploring that issue actively with the Department of Health and local authority associations.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's assurance that the guidance that is being issued will be clear. Does he share my view that the existing regulations about what local authority support may be provided to which asylum seekers is extremely complex and confusing and that it is essential that National Health Service hospitals are able to take a clear view on this extremely important matter, which we will debate this afternoon when we reach the Report stage of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl that the guidance is unclear. The area of uncertainty was not about hospitals but about whether a local authority could legitimately provide care. In practice, the position under treaty rights was clear. Having said that—I am glad that this issue has been raised because it allowed us to put out a national clarification—a local authority is perfectly entitled in this regard and the Community treaty rights were clear in the circumstances that I have described. We therefore believe that there is not a significant problem, with the exception of the one small issue that I raised, which we are considering further.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's statement and the guidance. What recommendation does the guidance offer to the NHS and social services about how nationality is trapped in those circumstances?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, rather than boring the House to tedium, I should be happy to place a copy of the guidance issued by the Social Services Inspectorate in the Library. I hope to do so very shortly. In essence, anyone who is an EEA national, who has worked here or is a student, or is the dependant of anyone who has worked here—work includes self-employment for these purposes—is entitled to social care because they attain that right through Community treaty rights.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am concerned by the words "work here" or "have worked here". What about those people under EEA treaties who do not and have not worked here? Will they be entitled to such benefits? They may have come here for a number of reasons; they may never have worked a day since arriving in this country and consequently they fall into the trap that is being laid within the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act. Would the Minister be kind enough to respond to that?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have responded as far as I am able on that point. I signalled that, as far as we could see, there was not a significant number of cases. I instanced the 12 out of the 13; we were clear within a matter of hours that they fell into the beneficial category about which I spoke.
The area of complexity is a more general area about whether I or anyone else can go to another EEA country and be entitled to receive full and total social security support. People who come to this country to retire sign a declaration that they will be able to support themselves. In that area we are considering further issues carefully and we shall continue to do that over the next week or so.

University Research Funding
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria would need to be satisfied for university departments to gain the 6* status proposed in paragraph 2.15 of the White Paper The future of higher education (Cm 5735).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has announced that it will allocate £20 million next year to university research departments that achieved a 5* rating in both the 1996 and 2001 research assessment exercises. HEFCE will consider how to reward the very best performers in future years.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I welcome the extra money that is being put into the science budget. However, she did not answer my Question. I declare an interest: for the past 20 years of my academic career I have worked in the Science Policy Research Unit and I continue to be a visiting fellow in that unit. Is the Minister aware that already 75 per cent of science funding is concentrated in the hands of 25 per cent of universities? That is a higher proportion than in any other country, including the United States. Is she also aware of research that was undertaken in the early 1990s at the Science Policy Research Unit that indicated that there was little or no evidence of any economies of scale in scientific research other than in departments that share large

1107
pieces of equipment, such as CERN? Is she worried that the further concentration of funding in large departments will stifle innovative research from smaller departments, and particularly from young, new researchers?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that I answered the Question posed by the noble Baroness on the criteria. The criteria used by HEFCE are the 1996 and 2001 research assessment exercises. I accept the noble Baroness's point about how research moneys are currently distributed. That is one reason why we have created a capability fund of £18 million. We want to look at distributing more moneys to departments that are rated 3A and 3B in seven identified emerging areas. It is important that universities are able to pursue excellence in research. We recognise emerging excellence departments, those areas of research where we need greater capability and, as is mentioned in the White Paper, the need to focus on teaching and on knowledge transfer.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the Government defend their cuts in the teaching programme that inevitably will have an effect on research programmes in our universities, particularly at Oxford?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not have details of the specific issues raised by the noble Baroness in relation to Oxford. We believe that the settlement for universities and higher education is a good settlement. Within that we believe that we are able to support universities in the pursuit of their teaching programmes, in the pursuit of research and in the pursuit of knowledge transfer—the three strands within the White Paper.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is possible to have too many new initiatives for the higher education sector and that this may be one too many? I declare an interest: I was a member of one department for the first RAE exercise and a member of a different department at a different university for the second RAE exercise. I believe that the whole 6* status is historically flawed in all kinds of intellectual and financial ways. Can the Minister explain whether there is any intellectual rationale for this odd proposal?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that I do not consider it to be an odd proposal. In a global economy, in which we compete with institutions and departments across the world, we must ensure that in our education system we are always in pursuit of excellence. I believe that this is part of that pursuit of excellence. It is a recognition of the enormous amount of work and the fantastic amount of research of an extremely high quality that takes place in our universities.

EU: Common Foreign Policy
2.55 p.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in developing a common foreign policy for the European Union.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the CFSP has made considerable progress since its launch in the Maastricht Treaty of 1993. The appointment of Javier Solana as high representative in 1999 has further assisted the process. The CFSP plays an important part in helping to bring about stability in the Balkans. However, recent developments in relation to Iraq have demonstrated the importance of Her Majesty's Government's policy, which found effect in the Amsterdam Treaty, that the CFSP must remain intergovernmental.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does the noble Baroness agree that the differing policies of France, Germany and the United Kingdom towards Iraq are in line with the national characters of those countries, as is the policy of France towards Mr Mugabe? As it is unlikely that even the European Commission will have the ability to standardise national characters, is the production of a single European foreign policy likely to prove an unproductive exercise?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is why in my Answer I stressed that the common foreign and security policy is and should remain intergovernmental. That is why it was designed that way in the Maastricht Treaty and that is why it stayed that way in the Amsterdam Treaty and in the Nice Treaty. In that way, as is right, we all have our say. Of course, on 17th February we managed to formulate an excellent statement at the European Council in relation to Iraq, but yes, there have been differences. Nothing in the CFSP implies that there should not be differences where they are so warranted. Where we can agree, we do, and where we do not agree we are all free to act independently. The CFSP provides for exactly that.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, notwithstanding the present concerns about the great powers of Europe being in disarray, do the Government agree that a concerted foreign policy could be greatly assisted, as has been suggested in some parts of the Convention on the Future of Europe, by the authority of Javier Solana being given greater support? His role could be linked with that of the Commissioner for External Affairs, thus enabling work to be carried out in preparation of common positions on which the governments could indicate agreement and gradually—it cannot be other than gradual—a common policy could be developed.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, those matters are under discussion at the convention where the noble Lord plays an important part, for which we thank him. Many proposals are being put forward, such as for a full-time president of the European Council or a European foreign minister in one single person, but there may be varying degrees of agreement or disagreement to them. However, Her Majesty's Government believe that it is important to rest on the intergovernmental nature of the common foreign and security policy. I cannot stress that too much to your Lordships.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blaker has demonstrated that at the moment it is silly to talk of a common foreign policy in the European Union in relation to Iraq. Have the Government had any more luck in pursuing a better common foreign policy in relation to Zimbabwe? Has the noble Baroness noticed the strong, new measures proposed by the US Administration under an executive order from the President for enlarging the sanctions, tying up assets more vigorously and generally carrying forward a strong and an effective opposition to Mr Mugabe? Have the Government succeeded in putting those proposals to their partners in the European Union? Should we take the initiative in such matters rather than follow the American example?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not think that it is right to characterise the position with Iraq as silly. Certainly different countries have different policies in relation to the matters currently being discussed in the United Nations. But it was not silly to reach the agreement that we did on 17th February. As I found when I was in the Gulf states only last Monday, it was of enormous importance when discussing those matters between the EU and the Gulf states.
I turn to the question about Zimbabwe. The United States has brought forward an interesting point. We have ourselves continued the targeting sanctions policy on Zimbabwe, which was rolled over on 18th February. It includes arms embargoes, an assets-freeze and a travel ban remaining in place. We shall keep looking for additional ways in which extra leverage can be applied.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am impressed by the stress which the noble Baroness has placed on the intergovernmental character of the common foreign security policy. On a day when we welcome the result of the Maltese referendum for joining the European Union, is she confident that we can manage an entirely intergovernmental common foreign policy in an EU of 25? Does the noble Baroness recall that Malta on one occasion postponed the conclusion of a CSCE review conference by several days, insisting that the Maltese position on a conference on security co-operation in the Mediterranean should be accepted by all 34 other governments or the Maltese would not
1110
agree? Does she think that with 25 members some movement towards a more common foreign policy might be desirable and possibly efficient?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I also welcome the vote in Malta and congratulate them on their remarkably high turnout, which might be the envy of many of us. The noble Lord asked whether I am confident that the intergovernmental nature can be maintained. We are now entering a period of discussion and negotiation—as I have said to the House—on where the Government believe we should stand on the intergovernmental nature. Of course the noble Lord will also know from having read the documents emanating from the European convention that there are some who believe that there should be a further extension of qualified majority voting in a number of different areas. No doubt those matters will be discussed not only when those proposals are issued at the end of the convention consideration, but also in due course I am sure that your Lordships will very much enjoy debating them.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on Iraq and Israel/Palestine.

European Parliament (Representation) Bill
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the European Parliament (Representation) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 6,
Schedule,
Clauses 7 to 25.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Commit tee of the Whole House.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
3.2 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "NHS body" and "qualifying hospital patient"]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert "other than a person receiving mental health services"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I make no apology for returning to an issue which we debated in Committee and which is of great importance. Whatever else the Bill does for acute and geriatric patients, it should not apply to patients receiving mental health services.
That might at first seem an odd proposition. Over-extended stays in psychiatric wards are a real concern. That is not good for anyone. A recent survey by the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health on the quality of care in acute psychiatric wards reached the disturbing conclusion that hospital care was "non-therapeutic". That verdict is reflected in patients' attitude. One will not find many mental health patients who enjoy being in hospital. For many, being an in-patient does nothing to address their underlying long-term needs. The shortage of medium-secure units and long-stay, low-secure accommodation means that patients are frequently placed in conditions with inappropriately high levels of security where the regime is fundamentally unhelpful to them.
I am therefore the first to acknowledge that psychiatric patients should be kept out of hospitals if at all possible. However, sometimes hospital admission cannot be avoided; for example, when a patient is so ill and so incapable of looking after himself that in order to avoid coming to serious harm he has to be looked after in a formal care setting. In a small minority of cases, the patient may be viewed as being a danger to other people.
Once such a patient is in hospital, his discharge requires considerable care. The potential for the person to harm himself or others is a judgment that cannot be made in a hurry. It certainly cannot be made when the patient is first admitted to hospital. Of course there must be joint working between health and social services. That kind of partnership working is becoming well established in many parts of the country. But it takes place against the backdrop of inadequate capacity in specialised community mental health services. The National Service Framework for Mental Health identified lack of capacity as the single largest cause of delayed discharge.
There are unique considerations in the field of mental health. If one creates legal duties that compel one part of the sector to penalise the other, one creates incentives and drivers that could very easily put service users at direct risk. The Minister knows that I am not at all enthusiastic about Part 1 of the Bill. As regards mental health there is an immediate concern about patient safety. I would have only slightly less difficulty
1112
with the notion of including psychiatric patients if there were greater capacity in hostels and supported accommodation, in rehabilitation services and in 24-hour staffed beds in inner cities. But there is a chronic lack of capacity in those areas. To require local authorities to provide care in short order to psychiatric patients is not just unfair on local authorities, it is also unfair on patients who find themselves pitched out of hospital and who cannot then access the services and support they need.
The pressure to reduce the number and length of hospital stays will mean inevitably that discharges from psychiatric wards are planned and carried out in too much of a hurry. The type of assessment required under Clause 3 is not comparable—in substance or in scale—to the comprehensive community care assessment that local authorities have to carry out for psychiatric patients under other legislation. A full-scale assessment would include provision for primary care, housing and support services of all kinds, including crisis resolution teams. That indeed should be done.
However, once the NHS knows it can free-up its blocked psychiatric beds without penalty by offloading the problem on to local government, it is bound to look for ways to achieve that. The temptation may be to use medication as a means of managing symptoms in order to achieve earlier discharge. That might not be the appropriate solution for some people. But, at the very least, if a patient is placed on medication his condition needs to stabilise before he is discharged and any side effects need to be monitored. None of that can be done in short order. Yet the Bill as it stands is an invitation to cut corners and rush matters through.
Therefore, even if there were not such a capacity problem in the areas I mentioned a moment ago, I would be firmly against extending the scope of the Bill to include mental health patients. If we recognise that well co-ordinated services are the key to helping those with mental illnesses, then the imposition of penalties and therefore tensions and barriers between different arms of those services would be taking us in precisely the wrong direction. We should decide now that for mental health patients this is simply a bridge too far in terms of the risk that it carriers. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in his excellent exposition of the case for the amendment. There is a clear case for mental health services to be explicitly exempt from the proposed reimbursement regime and from being brought under the scope of the Bill by future regulation. We entirely agree with the noble Earl that it would be inappropriate to apply the scheme to the mental health sector, due to the different procedures from those operating in the acute sector for patient discharge and for working across health and social services to facilitate service users' onward journey.
Under the current draft regulations, the local authority will not be made liable for charges if the patient is awaiting another NHS or community care

1113
service, such as psychiatric or mental health after-care assessment, but cannot move on because the availability of those NHS services is blocked due to lack of social care provision. However, as the Explanatory Notes make clear, Ministers intend eventually to apply the reimbursement regime to other NHS services, including mental health services.
NHS mental health services now operate in an integrated structure between health and social care, with varying degrees of pooled budgets and legal responsibilities. It is not clear how the financial flows could operate in that context. The duty to levy financial penalties against local authorities would undermine the success of those arrangements. According to the Government's National Service Framework for Mental Health, it is lack of capacity in community mental health services, not inefficiencies in social services departments, that is the key cause of delayed discharges for psychiatric patients.
Moreover, assessment of a psychiatric patient's fitness for discharge and putting together an appropriate after-care package involves complex considerations, including self-harm, risk to others and appropriate accommodation, which can rarely be worked through in a three-day period. Furthermore, there is no provision in the Bill for involvement of specialist advocates and carers in the discharge planning process. There is a risk that pressure to reduce prolonged hospital admissions will concentrate resources on the acute sector of mental health services at the expense of' community care provision. Pioneering community care projects around the country could lose their funding as councils divert money into different services to avoid the penalties.
There is also the danger that the Bill will put pressure on local authorities to accept discharged patients earlier than they should, without proper accommodation or essential support services in place. Medication may be used to manage symptoms to achieve earlier discharge without proper consideration being given to a range of therapeutic interventions. For all those reasons, we strongly support the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I first welcome the opportunity to debate mental health issues. Although I recognise that it would be inappropriate to extend the Bill's provisions to mental health patients at the same time as we intend to do for those who are receiving acute care, I cannot agree to the amendment, which would mean that mental health patients would be excluded for all time from the provisions. I am well aware of the pressures and issues that face those running mental health services and the impact that that has on the services' users.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is absolutely right to say that over-extended stops in mental health hospitals is a cause of real concern. I echo the point that he cited from the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health—an
1114
organisation for which I once worked—describing some aspects of hospital care as non-therapeutic. None the less, many mental health patients continue to require treatment in hospitals. As a matter of general principle, the core of the Bill, which is to allow for effective and speedy discharge when it is safe, ought to extend to mental health patients at some point in future.
I want to make clear, as I did in Committee, that we intend in the first instance to prescribe acute care as the type of care that patients must be receiving to qualify, and then, later, to extend the Bill to other types of care where there is a problem with delay. Mental health is one of the types of care excluded from the Bill by draft regulations that have been circulated. We have chosen to take a pragmatic approach because we do not want to overload local authorities, which are preparing to implement the system as a whole.
There is no automatic decision to expand the scope of the Bill to cover mental health, but if we made that decision at some stage, I assure noble Lords that that would not happen without full and proper examination of whether it would he beneficial to mental health patients and the mental health sector as a whole. We should want to consider whether the level of reimbursement should be set differently to provide the right incentive for mental health patients, and whether the minimum compliance period should be extended to reflect the difficulties described by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which may arise when assessing mental health patients or providing services.
The Bill has been drafted to allow for expansion. It does not commit us to do so; nor does it restrict us to extending the reimbursement scheme in its current form, because Clause 8 enables us to make different provision for different cases. That will enable us to avoid the perverse incentives mentioned by both noble Lords. We do not have a timetable in mind for such an extension. The decision whether to apply reimbursement to the mental health sector will he taken after the system has had time to bed down in the acute sector.
However, it would be a mistake explicitly to exclude mental health patients from the Bill. It is much to be regretted when such patients have unduly to extend their stay in hospital because of issues such as those raised by the noble Earl, concerning community services. It is important that we retain the ability to extend the benefits of the Bill to mental health patients at some stage, if that is what is decided.
My department has received representations from many mental health professionals who are concerned that their patients should be included in the Bill's provisions as soon as possible, and who want them to benefit from the more timely provision of services that should result. Although we are not prepared to go down that route, we should enable ourselves later to extend the Bill's provisions to mental health patients. Would it be justified to say that we should ring-fence mental health from a scheme that will start with acute patients and can be extended to other parts of NHS

1115
service provision—to say that mental health patients should not receive those benefits? That would be unjustified.
I hope that I have given reassurances that if it were decided to extend the Bill to mental health patients, that would not be done without careful discussion and consultation with appropriate stakeholders—many of whom have argued that it should extend to mental health patients right from the start.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, much as I hate this way of releasing beds for other patients in hospitals and, therefore, dislike the Bill as a whole, he talked about extending it to mental health patients when it becomes an Act. I am inclined to agree with him. At some stage it would be a logical, sensible progression. However, the Minister also talked about full and proper examination of the facts before an order for the extension was laid. Will that examination of the facts include consultation with health professionals and the charities involved in this area?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is a fair point. It would be a major step to extend the Bill to mental health patients. I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that no such step would be taken without full consultation with the groups that he mentioned.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which was not unexpected, but I fear that I am not persuaded by it. The essence of a solution for unblocking beds in psychiatric wards is partnership working between health and social services and ensuring that we do not discharge patients before they are ready. I cannot accept that we should adopt a suck-it-and-see approach and wait to discover how the legislation works in practice. As it is, the Government are being extremely cavalier about the risks of applying a system of fines and reimbursement to the acute sector, never mind to any other.
But we can be sure of one thing: if Ministers have the legal scope to improve the delayed discharge statistics by extending the Bill to the mental health sector, sooner or later it will happen. No proper heed will be paid to the lack of capacity in community services, low-secure accommodation and so on. No doubt, consultation will take place, but I wonder how heavily those factors will weigh. Local authorities will be seen as the whipping boys, as they are at present.
If I sound cynical, I am sorry to say that I plead guilty. Despite everything the Minister has said, I am very much against leaving our options open on this matter. I submit that in mental health the problems created by the Bill are of a different order from those that may arise elsewhere. The Minister's reference to denying mental health patients the benefits of the Bill seems an extraordinary gloss that many of us would not recognise in what the Bill will actually do to such
1116
patients. The risks for patients and other people are simply too great. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
3.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Ackner, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Addington, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ampthill, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lucas, L.

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Luke, L.

Avebury, L.

Lyell, L.

Barker, B.[Teller]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Biffen, L.

L.

Blaker, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blatch, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Bradshaw, L.

McNally, L.

Brightman, L.

Maddock, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marsh, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Butterworth, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Caithness, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chadlington, L.

Noakes, B.

Chorley, L.

Northesk, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Northover, B.

Cockfield, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Coe, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Reay, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Redesdale, L.

Denham, L.

Renton, L.

Derby, Bp.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Dholakia, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Roper, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sandberg, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandwich, E.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Ezra, L.

Selsdon, L.

Fookes, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Glentoran, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goodhart, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Slim, V.

Hanham, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Taverne, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Tenby, V.

Higgins, L.

Thatcher, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Howe, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Trumpington, B.

1117

Vivian, L.

Warnock, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wigoder, L.

Walmsley, B.

Wilcox, B.

Williams of Crosby, B

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Chancellor)

Bach, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jones, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jordan, L.

Bhatia, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Blood, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Lockwood, B.

Borrie, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L

Brennan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

[Teller]

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Burlison, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Christopher, L.

Mitchell, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Morgan, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Orme, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ouseley, L.

Crawley, B.

Parekh, L.

David, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Peston, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dixon, L.

Puttnam, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Eatwell, L.

Richard, L.

Elder, L.

Rogan, L.

Erroll, E.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Falkender, B.

Sheldon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gale, B.

Stallard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Golding, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Goudie, B.

Turnberg, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Greengross, B.

Varley, L.

Gregson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitaker, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Whitty L.

Harrison, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hayman, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Privy Seal)

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.35 p.m.
Clause 2 [Notice of patient's likely need for community cure services]:
Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, after "hospital" insert "including independent hospitals which provide health care for which NHS bodies or service providers have responsibility"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. They are probing amendments, based on what the Minister said in Committee, not just about the position of independent hospitals in the UK in which NHS patients are being treated but also with regard to the fact that foreign hospitals under contract with the NHS could be entitled to charge social services departments for delayed discharge. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—I am sorry that he is not in his place today—who managed, in his inimitable way, to elicit that interesting fact from the Minister.
The situation arises because, as long as they are ordinarily resident in England or Wales, qualifying persons will place such a duty on whatever acute hospital they are in, as long as the care has been commissioned by the National Health Service. The logic of the Bill is that Clause 3, which places a duty on local authorities to pay the NHS, will apply. That is very much the logic of what the Minister said in Committee:
"I should answer the question whether the clause will apply when an NHS patient is sent abroad under the scheme that we have for that purpose. It could apply because the clause says that a qualifying hospital patient means,
'a person being accommodated at—

(a) a health service hospital; or

(b) an independent hospital, in pursuance of arrangements made by an NHS body"'.

The Minister went on to say:
"On that basis, the clause could apply to an NHS patient sent abroad. In that context, the NHS body would be a primary care trust".—[Official Report, 17/2/03; col. 942.]
The Minister nods his head, so, clearly, I have not lost all my senses yet this afternoon and that is a correct interpretation of what he said.
The implications of that ministerial statement are, as, I am sure, the Minister realised at the time, fairly large. It would involve additional administration and costs. It would mean incorporating an independent hospital abroad into legislation for England and Wales to enable it—a foreign hospital, as we should not forget—to charge an English or Welsh local authority. How will that affect the commissioning of hospitals? How will it affect the administration of the Act? What guidance will be given to social services on how to deal with a notice from Baden-Württemberg or wherever an NHS patient is being treated? They may find that a patient whom they had not considered for surgery has had some kind of surgery that has gone wrong or involves community care. The Minister has not foreseen such a situation, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. It is a matter of some concern to those of us on these Benches, and the Minister should explain in some detail how the system will work.
In drawing up the amendments, we were mindful of the position of hospices. At this juncture, however, we shall not replay the hospice issue; we will return to it

1119
at Third Reading. However, the issue underlying our probing amendments is so important that we wished to treat it by itself and get a reply on it from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this question caused great excitement in our debates in Committee. Although the interjection made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was helpful, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, also took part in the debate on this important issue. I shall deal first with hospices, before turning to independent hospitals and the position of NHS-funded treatment overseas.
As regards hospices, I shall be meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to discuss the issue she raised in Committee. I am sure that that will inform any debate at Third Reading. Essentially, Amendment No. 2 repeats the point made in Clause 1(1). The qualifying patient may be accommodated in,
"an independent hospital in pursuance of arrangements made by an NHS body".
The key words are,
"in pursuance of arrangements made by an NHS body".
Hospices would be treated just as any other independent hospital. If the Bill applied to patients in hospices, patients would have to be in the hospice,
"in pursuance of arrangements made by an NHS body".
The Government intend the Bill to cover any patient whose care is arranged and funded at an independent hospital by the National Health Service.
I turn now to patients who receive NHS-funded treatment in hospitals overseas. This issue needs to be put into perspective. A small number of patients—approximately 200—have been treated either in France or Germany as part of efforts to reduce the length of time that they may have to wait for treatment in the United Kingdom. We do not expect a dramatic expansion in numbers of people receiving treatment overseas due to limits on capacity in European hospitals to treat extra patients. However, we accept that some overseas treatment can be effective—when the patient agrees and the treatment offers value for money—in reducing the length of time that a patient waits for elective treatment.
Currently, patients treated abroad fall within the scope of the Bill, similar to NHS patients being treated by private providers. The reason is that the definition used of a "qualifying hospital patient" in Clause 1 includes people being treated at an independent hospital as defined in the Care Standards Act 2000. As noble Lords know, the Act does not specify that independent hospitals must be located in the UK.
I want to reassure noble Lords on how this might work. Patients selected for overseas treatment are carefully screened to check that there are no reasons, such as social care or housing needs, which would complicate their discharge. Furthermore, patients receive extra rehabilitation, which can be extended if required, as part of the in-patient stay. The overseas hospitals are all clear that patients should not be discharged until they are able to carry out daily life
1120
activities, unaided, in their own home. Therefore, patients treated overseas are unlikely to have social care needs on return to the UK. However, should the patient's condition change and community care needs become necessary, it is highly unlikely that an assessment could not wait until the patient returns to the UK. That would not therefore need to be done abroad.
As a point of good practice, the lead commissioners of Kent and Medway already advise local hospitals to alert social services that patients are going abroad under the scheme and inform them of their expected return date. Therefore, social services are involved from the beginning. The commissioners take NHS trusts through the possible situations that may arise so that they are prepared in advance.
On the basis of the operation of the scheme so far, the best information is that it is highly unlikely that a patient treated overseas will require an assessment of community care services before he returns home. The care taken should ensure that patients are more fully recovered before returning home. However, should the scenario arise, it would not be fair to separate this group of NHS acute patients from others. Each trust or PCT which is sending patients abroad retains the responsibility for co-ordinating patient discharge requirements, just as though the patient had been treated in the UK.
Turning to the issue of practicalities raised by the noble Lord, of course I recognise that it would be more complicated for social services to carry out an assessment overseas if that really were required. Therefore, the Government will obviously be considering whether to allow a longer minimum period for overseas assessment. That can be done through regulations under Clause 4. Clause 8 allows that regulations make different provision for different cases and circumstances.
I emphasise that the Bill does not mean that reimbursement charges will be paid to overseas hospitals. Any payment for delays caused by social services will go to the NHS trust or the primary care trust which had commissioned the treatment in the first instance.
In conclusion, I confirm what I said in Committee about the provisions of the Bill extending to patients treated overseas. Based on the experience of the 200 patients, the problems suggested by the noble Lord seem unlikely. The Bill as drafted extends to patients treated overseas because of the construction made in Clause 1.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I do not know whether to be reassured or surprised by the Minister's reply. He has erected a rickety structure around the proposition that patients treated abroad are brought within the ambit of the Bill. In a sense, that exemplifies the ramshackle nature of the Bill.
The Minister said that although a limited number of patients will be treated abroad, some of them could be affected. Moreover, the intention is that only

1121
patients who are not expected to have any complications will be treated overseas and that extra rehabilitation is provided for those patients. That means that those patients receiving treatment overseas will have treatment different from patients treated in independent hospitals in England and Wales. There is a special provision. Presumably, teams of lawyers will write contracts with the independent hospitals in Baden-Württemberg or wherever. They can carry on their activities unaided. Therefore, different discharge provisions apply to patients who leave those independent hospitals, as opposed to other independent hospitals.
A whole series of exceptions is building up in order to make the Bill work. That exemplifies a key issue expressed by Members on the Opposition Benches. Every time the Minister replies, even to an innocuous probing amendment such as this, contradictions in the Bill emerge. But the Minister relies on the fact that it is highly unlikely that these patients will not be fully recovered—and there will be another exception. Under the regulations, instead of ensuring that care is available after three days, a longer period of time may be specified. There will be another set of provisions which relate solely to those patients treated in hospitals abroad.
I have elicited enough information from the Minister, but it does not reassure me. It may give rise to a series of future amendments at another stage. In the mean time, with some perplexity, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
"and
(c) has consulted with the patient (and in the case of a carer in relation to assessment under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 (c. 12) and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (c. 16) to ascertain their views and preferences, informed them of the reason for the notification, and obtained their informed consent or in the case where a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent, has recorded on the file what steps have been taken to ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this long batch of amendments returns to an issue on which we spent a considerable amount of time in Committee; that is, the issue of consent. In introducing the amendments, it is important to begin by saying that the Bill omits any reference to consent, either on the part of a patient or a carer, when placing a duty on the NHS to refer a patient to social services. That is a flaw which features increasingly in community care legislation.
People have the right to refuse social services assistance other than in certain specific circumstances, such as individuals sectioned under the Mental Health Act. While most people will welcome the intervention of social services when they need them, and will welcome early intervention, there are those who will not do so. For whatever reason, certain people will want to make their own arrangements and they should
1122
have the right to refuse. Thus what lies behind the amendments, in particular Amendment No. 3, is to ensure that people, should they not wish to use them, have the right to refuse to be referred to social services.
We think that the issue of consent is extremely important. Nothing in Clause 2 indicates who is to make the decision that community care services are likely to be required, or even how such a decision is reached. Given that under the framework being set up by the Bill, hospitals are likely to prefer all patients to come under the responsibility of social services—bearing in mind the penalty system that is to come into force—it is probable that, without a specific recommendation that the views of an individual must be taken into account, all patients will be referred regardless of their wishes.
During our debates in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, made a helpful concession about the need to consult with patients. I recognise that the provision was not included before. However, I doubt whether noble Lords are under any illusions about the key difference between consultation and the necessity to obtain consent. Fears were expressed from the Government Benches during our earlier debates that people would have to consent to the individual care package being offered to them. However, the amendments reflect our contention that people should give their consent to any arrangements made with social services on their behalf. In that we and the Government hold distinctly different views.
The notion of consent is important. Noble Lords on these Benches feel that going ahead without the express consent of a patient could contravene their right to confidentiality and could be seen as a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which as noble Lords know confirms respect for the right to private and family life, home and correspondence.
The second issue dealt with in my amendments and those standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is the right to carers' assessments. In Committee we discussed at length the need for an independent assessment of carers' needs and we recognise that the Bill has been changed during its passage through another place. In response to our probing in Committee, Ministers made much of the hospital discharge workbook and the good practice contained in it. While no one on this side of the House would dispute the fact that the work book contains a great deal in the way of good practice, it does not constitute a statutory obligation or impose statutory guidance on the NHS. Indeed, I believe we had reached this point in our earlier discussions when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made his welcome intervention on the issue of guidance and the NHS. Would that the noble Lord were in his place today to join in my arguments with his characteristic vigour.
We believe that the issue of consultation, together with assessment, is key to ensuring that what happens to older people and their carers is not just quick, but is also timely. It would reflect good practice. That is why

1123
we have taken certain elements of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Carers and Direct Payments (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, both of which place duties to provide assessments for and make available information to carers.
Taken together, the amendments would add up to good practice while not presenting a threat either to the NHS or to local authorities. We believe, too, that the rights conferred by them would root out the bad practice which still exists, notwithstanding all the force of earlier legislation for carers passed by this Government and their predecessors. That is why we believe that the amendments would be of great benefit and that they should be included on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 20, 31 and 32 tabled in my name, as well as to Amendment No. 3, to which, in the spirit of solidarity, I have added my name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
Like the noble Baroness, I very much welcome the appearance in the Marshalled List of government Amendment No. 7 and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it. Until now the Minister has stuck to the line that an explicit legal requirement to consult the patient about a Clause 2 notice is unnecessary, but I am delighted that she has felt able to revise her view. However, I would say with respect that that change of view is essential.
This is an instance where one could argue with perfect cogency that existing legislation and good practice are quite sufficient to ensure that patients will be consulted as regards what will happen to them; ergo, there is no need to clog up the Bill by reinforcing those requirements. But that is the clinical argument which misses the point about the balance of the Bill as currently drafted and the messages it will send out. The Minister knows that one of the things I find distasteful about the Bill is that, amid all the process and procedure it will impose on NHS trusts and local authorities—as well as all the time constraints—the patient's right to speak is nowhere acknowledged. That balance is wrong.
The Bill is all about speeding up discharges and getting patients out of the door as quickly as possible. We must not allow patients to become, or to risk becoming, the property of the system. Although the Minister may still insist that her amendment is unnecessary in strict terms, I say to her that that is why it is not.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, emphasised so forcefully when introducing her amendment, there is still an important gap here; that of patient consent. I am sure the Minister is aware that no little controversy rages about the fuzziness of the rules surrounding the disclosure of confidential patient data between doctors and staff within the health service. That debate has not been concluded and no doubt has some way to run. However, I simply do not think that we should countenance a situation whereby a duty is imposed on
1124
the NHS to refer a patient to an authority outside the health service without at the same time ensuring that the patient's rights of confidentiality are respected. That is basic.
A national service framework provision on patient-centred care specifically relates to this area. But Clause 2 as currently drafted, combined with Amendment No. 7, show that the wording does not reflect the NSF provision which speaks of,
"enabling older people to make informed choices, involving them in all decisions about their needs and care".
One can argue that a Clause 2 notice does not involve detailed decisions relating to future care—it involves an initial decision as to whether a patient requires, or is likely to require, the assistance of social services—but the disclosure of confidential patient data follows automatically from a decision to notify. Once social services have been notified, it is then their legal duty to assess the patient and prepare a care package for him. It is impossible to ask a local authority to carry out such a duty without allowing it free access to the patient's medical history.
But these are private matters. I have said that we must not allow patients to become, or risk becoming, the property of the system. If we say to the NHS that it has carte blanche to disclose confidential medical details to social workers, that is exactly what we will be doing.
The Minister said that a Clause 2 notice formalises what already happens in many parts of the country. It would be instructive to hear from her what existing regulations or guidance allow a hospital to inform a local authority about a patient without that patient knowing about it. If that does happen, it should not. The fact that it may or does happen is no reason to enshrine the practice in legislation.
The Minister has made it clear that patients ought not be allowed a veto. I understand what underlies that viewpoint in the NHS. Patients have rights, but those rights are not all encompassing. We do not say that every citizen of this country has the right to receive from the NHS any medical treatment that he or she may demand, but we surely do say that patients have the right to refuse medical treatment. Why should not we also say that patients have the right to refuse the opportunity to become clients of social services?
Most people would not want to turn down that opportunity, but some might. Are we really saying that the requirement of the NHS to free-up blocked beds is so urgent, so overriding, that we cannot allow patients to exercise that choice? Surely not.
My amendments go further than those of the Minister in several respects, not only on the issue of the initial consent in Clause 2 but also on whether the patient is consulted about the care package eventually offered to him. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said so well in Committee, the NHS insists on consent—and, indeed, properly informed consent—in almost every other area of patient treatment, why not here as well?

1125
If unamended, the Bill will mean that care packages have to he put together in a hurry; it will mean patients being forced or cowed into accepting things that they do not want. I do not believe that that is acceptable. Why. at the very least, do we not specify explicitly that the patient should be consulted about the care package and what that package is likely to involve for him?
Now that the Government have taken the welcome step of conceding the principle of consultation as regards Clause 2 notices, it is surely no giant leap to concede the principle of consultation during the later stages of the process. Many would regard that kind of consultation as being of equal importance. It will do something to guarantee that the patient is not treated as a parcel. The "like it or lump it Bill" is not an attractive tag to attach to this legislation, but if they are not careful the Government will find that that is exactly the tag it will acquire. I ask the Minister to go further than she has; I hope that she will.
4 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, it is important for carers as well as for patients that discharge planning starts upon, or preferably before, admission. Carer organisations have made this point time and again and it is good to note that so many noble Lords have taken the issue on board.
The Government's amendments provide adequate safeguards for carers. I have a slight concern about the word "reasonably" in Amendment No. 7, but the needs of carers are sufficiently covered in these amendments, especially when the requirements of other Acts of Parliament relating to carers and the guidance in the discharge workbook are taken into account.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I support this group of amendments. They go to the heart of what many old people and the organisations that represent them have found unacceptable in the Bill. To he admitted to an acute hospital is a traumatic experience. Elderly people will be confused, uncomfortable, ill at ease and bewildered by what has been going on. The sense that they are no longer in control of their own lives is inevitably there for patients in an acute hospital.
At the end of the episode of treatment, it is absolutely vital that people are properly consulted and give their consent. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that Amendment No. 7 is to be welcomed but simply does not go far enough. Informed consent must be written on the face of the Bill.
In representing those who try to offer the ministry of the Church in hospital, I am often frustrated by the new patient confidentiality arrangements. Parish clergy wish that they could gain access to lists of patients and all the other things that we used to be able to do but no longer can. That can be frustrating. I recognise that it is necessary to defend the rights of patients to privacy and their ability to decide about their own future. Age Concern has raised the question
1126
that this issue could potentially breach Article 8 of the European Convention in regard to respect for private and family life, home, correspondence and so on.
As the noble Earl said, not many people will want to refuse the opportunity of discussing what is going to happen with social services. Almost all will be grateful for the opportunity of at least knowing what options are open to them. But it is very important that consent is forthcoming. It is self-evident that the amendment would be a significant humanising of the Bill and would meet the objection made by so many people that the Bill does not treat elderly patients fully as human beings. The word "commodities" has been used. I know that the Minister does not like that word and resists it.
I strongly support this group of amendments. If we are to take the pastoral needs of elderly patients seriously, they must be allowed to give consent.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. This is an important issue and I am grateful for the conditional welcome that has been given to the Government's Amendment No. 7. I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6 and place Amendment No. 7 in that context.
The current position is that, in exercising their functions, the NHS and social services must give all proper information to a person so that he can make an informed decision about whether or not to accept care or services. These are fundamental duties which stem from the fact that they are public bodies. Technically, therefore, there is no need to make provision for consultation on the face of the Bill.
However, bearing in mind what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said—that we have to be careful not to be too clinical and to lose our humanity in the process—we are happy to respond to the concerns expressed in Committee and we have brought forward the Government's amendment. It will place a duty on the NHS to consult the patient and, where appropriate, his carer, prior to issuing a notice to the local authority of the patient's likely need for community care services upon discharge under Clause 2. We are all keen to avoid wasting the time of the NHS and social services by initiating assessments which are not required or involving patients in assessment without their prior knowledge. The Government's amendment will avoid that and reinforce the existing good practice which dictates that the patient must be kept informed and consulted at all stages of the assessment process.
The noble Earl is right, this would have happened in any case, but we are happy to put it on the face of the Bill. We are confident that it will make a difference and we are grateful for the support it has received.
A point was raised about the nature of a Clause 2 notice and the question of confidentiality and privacy. In Committee, I stressed that a Clause 2 notice is a very basic notice which simply requires the basic details about a patient—name and address and so forth. With regard to whether this is likely to breach Article 8 of the ECHR, I am told that the matter has been checked

1127
and our advice is that no breach of Article 8 is implicit in the provision and we are confident, therefore, that we can protect the confidentiality of the patient.
I turn now to the issue of carers. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. There is no one in this House who speaks with more authority about the work of carers and the implications that the Bill will have for them.
The requirement to consult a carer is slightly circumscribed in that the NHS body has to consult a carer only if it knows who the carer is and if it is reasonably practical to find out. This avoids any question of accidental or avoidable delay, which we want to minimise as much as possible in the Bill.
In addition, the Bill will be backed up by practical provisions. The guidance will emphasise the importance of consultation. The good practice workbook emphasises, in a whole chapter on patients and carers, what we mean by consultation and the importance of it. There is already a great deal of good practice in the process from which other local authorities can learn.
Noble Lords have rightly said that there is a difference between "consult" and "consent". It is important to be clear about the difference and to understand the implications of putting "consent" on the face of the Bill—which explain our difficulty with it. The Bill does not prevent a patient from refusing to co-operate with the NHS or social services in an assessment. That is the inviolable human right that patients have. But to give a person the right to prevent the NHS from taking the first step to inform local authorities that, in its judgment, for the well-being of the patient there may well be a role for social services on his or her discharge, would be counter-productive. It would do nothing to ensure that the patient would receive the most appropriate care available. It would require extra and unnecessary bureaucracy. It would not reduce delays.
I state again that, if the person involved does not want help from the social services—no matter how great his or her need, or for whatever reason—it cannot be forced upon him or her. Surely that is the most important point to bear in mind. There has to be a way of initiating contact with the social services which takes account of the patient's feelings. I believe that the requirement that we seek to add via Amendment No. 7 is sufficient to ensure that that proper balance is maintained.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 20—to which the noble Earl spoke—and 23. The amendments propose that local authorities should consult with parents and carers during the assessment process. The problem that we have is that we are alarmed that such a provision would cut across the existing assessment process.
Clause 3(11) clearly ties assessments carried out in accordance with the duty in Clause 3(3) to assessments carried out under Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. We are very clear that there should be no difference in the type or
1128
standard of the assessment to which a person is entitled. We have spent a great deal of time on the single assessment process. The amendments would differentiate an assessment carried out in accordance with Clause 3(3) from other Section 47 assessments. We are concerned about this. We believe that it would introduce confusion into the Bill which might hold up assessments, cause duplicate assessments or cut across assessments. So we do have a problem.
A point which should reassure the noble Earl is that social services are public bodies exercising public functions. They are bound by fundamental duties which require them to give all the information necessary for someone to make an informed decision. That includes information about the cost of care. I know that the noble Earl is concerned about this. Local authorities have received statutory guidance to provide information about costs and as part of the care planning process for a number of years. But, more importantly, the single assessment process requires them to give all information including costs. That is important.
I turn now to some of the points made about the importance of consent in this context. The noble Earl used strong language, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, about patients being forced or cowed into choices that they did not want to make. It was suggested that they would be treated as parcels or commodities.
My noble friend said in Committee, and I reiterate, that nothing could be further from the intention or, we believe, from the practice which is presently in operation. The single assessment process which was introduced three years ago has at its heart the concerns that we have for the patient, the patient voice, what it is that we can understand when we listen to patients, and what they need.
The Bill is not about reducing or minimising the voice of the patient or what we provide according to what patients see as their need. I reiterate that because it has been stated several times in this Chamber that there is a problem. I stress that the Bill makes no difference to a patient's rights with respect to consent. Patients have a right not to consent to receive services and an absolute right not to have services forced upon them.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 seek to place an equivalent duty on the NHS to consult patients and carers and to gain a patient's consent to services being provided following his or her discharge. These amendments are not necessary. Just as with the treatment provided by the NHS in hospital, a patient also has the right to withhold consent to services provided by the NHS in another setting. The Bill does not alter the existing requirement of the NHS to gain consent.
Likewise, we believe that Amendment No. 32 is unnecessary. It requires the NHS to inform the patient and his or her carer of the proposed discharge date. We believe that this is a matter of detail which does not sit appropriately on the face of the Bill. Moreover, it is absolutely clear in the discharge workbook, and we

1129
shall make it clear in the statutory guidance, that the patient is to be provided with this information so that he or she and his or her family are in no doubt about the discharge date.
But the amendment would place an entirely new duty on the NHS to gain the patient's consent to discharge. We must address this very serious question. At present, no NHS patient has a right under existing law to prevent his discharge by withholding consent. It would surely be inappropriate for such a right to be given when we consider that it would effectively give a patient the legal right to remain in a hospital bed indefinitely.
The decision regarding the date of discharge must take into account all the medical and social facts. The guidance makes it plain that it must be taken in consultation with the patient and with all relevant parties.
I turn finally to government Amendments Nos. 22, 23A and 58. I apologise to the House for the fact that these amendments were laid late and there were mistakes in them. Noble Lord will have received a letter to that effect, but I reiterate that we are very sorry about the drafting errors and we hope that the amendments will clarify what is in the Bill.
The amendments add a definition of "carer" to Clause 9, which is in the part of the Bill dealing with interpretation. There have now been a number of amendments to the original Bill dealing with carers, and the term now appears in more than one clause. It was felt that the drafting would be simpler if reference was made in the body of the Bill simply to "carer" and if the term was then defined in the interpretation clause, rather than leaving it in Clauses 3 and 5. The other two amendments are consequential on this.
I hope, in view of the noble Earl's remarks, that he will not in fact be disappointed that we cannot accept some of his amendments. I hope that he will accept our views about the difficulties that they would cause and will feel able not to move them.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between consultation and consent. When we talk about good practice, it is important to recognise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has done on many occasions, that there is an awful lot of bad practice, particularly in relation to carers. When patients and carers become one part of this equation, which is essentially a financial transaction, the pressure on them to accept practices which, in other circumstances, they would not accept—such as having information about them, however minimal, passed to social services—becomes extremely difficult for them to stand up to.
The Bill is, in many ways, incomplete. One of its great omissions is a thorough articulation of exactly what people's rights to confidentiality are. Had I chosen an example, I think I would have chosen the same one as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford about the clergy's access to patients. It is no longer the case that clergy of any faith, any
1130
denomination, can have access to the information held about patients. I believe that that is right, and also that patients should not have any of their details, however minimal, passed on to another body without their consent.
I take the Minister's point about the defective drafting of one or two of the latter amendments, but I do not think that her argument applies in relation to Amendment No. 3. This is a fundamentally important issue, and I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
4.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 142; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hamwee, B.

Addington, L.

Hanham, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hanningfield, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Ampthill, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Henley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Avebury, L.

Higgins, L.

Barker, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howe, E.

Biffen, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Blaker, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Blatch, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Jopling, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Laingof Dunphail, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Listowel, E.

Burnham, L.

London, Bp.

Buscombe, B.

Lucas, L.

Caithness, E.

Luke, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chadlington, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,L.

ChalkerofWallasey.B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Chan, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

McNally, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Maddock, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mar, C.

Crickhowell, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Derby, Bp.

Marsh, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Moynihan, L.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Naseby, L.

Flather, B.

Newby, L.

Fookes, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Fowler, L.

Noakes, B.

Freeman, L.

Northbrook, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Northesk, E.

Geddes, L.

Northover, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Glentoran, L.

Onslow, E.

Goodhart, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Gray of Contin, L.

1131

Palmer, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Patten, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Stewartby, L.

Rawlings, B.

Strange, B.

Reay, L.

Swinfen, L.

Redesdale, L.

Taverne, L.

Rennard, L.

Tebbit, L.

Renton, L.

Thatcher, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

Roper, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Tope, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Tordoff, L.

Sandberg, L.

Vivian, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Waddington, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Selsdon, L.

Walmsley, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Warnock, B.

Sharples, B.

Weatherill, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Alli.L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Andrews, B.

Goudie, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Grabiner, L.

Bach, L.

Greengross, B.

Barnett, L.

Gregson, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Berkeley, L.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Blackstone, B.

Harrison, L.

Blood, B.

Hayman, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Borrie, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bragg, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Brennan, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brookman, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Burlison, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Carter, L.

Chancellor)

Chandos, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Chorley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Christopher, L.

Jones, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jordan, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Judd, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Crawley, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

David, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

[Teller]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Dixon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dubs, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mitchell, L.

Elder, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morgan, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Orme, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ouseley, L.

Filkin, L.

Parekh, L.

Gale, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gilbert, L.

Paul, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Peston, L.

Golding, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

1132

Plant of Highfield, L.

Stallard, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Puttnam, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Richard, L.

Turnberg, L.

Rogan, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Varley, L.

Rooker, L.

Warner, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Whitaker, B.

Sheldon, L.

Whitty, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Simon, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Slim,V.

Privy Seal)

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Iraq and Israel/Palestine
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a statement on Iraq and Israel/Palestine."
"On Friday last, 7th March, I attended a ministerial meeting of the Security Council in New York—the fourth such since late January. I have placed copies in the Library of the House of the chief inspectors' latest reports, together with the text of the speech which I gave to the council, and a copy of the amended second resolution of which the UK is a co-signatory.
"The Security Council's meeting on Friday took place four months after the adoption of SCR 1441. This gave Iraq a 'final opportunity' to comply with a series of disarmament obligations. Significantly, during the hours of intensive debate last Friday, not a single speaker claimed that Iraq was in compliance with those obligations. Neither did a single speaker deny that Iraq has been in flagrant breach of international law for 12 years.
"Dr El Baradei's and Dr Blix's reports were about the continuing work of the inspectors. I pay tribute to them and to their teams.
"The first issues concern the International Atomic Energy Agency. As the House will be aware, nuclear facilities are intrinsically more difficult to construct and less easy to conceal than facilities for producing biological or chemical weapons. Dr El Baradei reported that,
'after three months of intrusive inspections, the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.'
That is welcome.

1133
"As for UNMOVIC, on the other hand, Dr Blix reported movement in some limited areas: for example, the partial destruction of prohibited Al Samoud missiles. This is, however, only the tip of the iceberg of Iraq's illegal programmes.
"The full extent of that iceberg was revealed in a document compiled by UNMOVIC entitled Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes, which was made publicly available late on 7th March. I have also placed copies of this document in the Library of the House. I commend it to all honourable Members. It sets out, in 173 pages of painstaking detail, the terrible nature of the weapons Saddam has sought with such determination to develop. It is a chilling catalogue of evasion and deceit, of feigning co-operation while in reality pursuing concealment.
"The sheer scale of Iraq's efforts to develop these weapons and to hide them can only be grasped by reading the whole document, with great care. But, from 29 separate sets of unresolved issues, let me give the House one illustration—anthrax. It is easily inhaled. The death rate in humans on untreated victims may be 90 per cent or more. Only tiny amounts are needed to inflict widespread casualties. Contrary to Iraqi assertions, the inspectors found evidence of anthrax where Iraq had declared there was none. Again, contrary to Iraqi assertions, UNMOVIC believes there is a strong presumption that some 10,000 litres of anthrax were not destroyed in the early 1990s and may still exist. Iraq also possesses the technology and materials to allow it to return swiftly to the pre-1991 production levels.
"Let me now deal with the issues of inspections and more time. I recognise the temptation to believe that the inspections are working and all that is needed is more time. But Saddam is the master of playing for time. Frankly, as anyone can see from reading the UNMOVIC document, to continue inspections with no firm end date will not achieve the disarmament required by the Security Council. This is the suggestion in the recent memorandum from France, Germany and Russia. But, as the memorandum acknowledges, this cannot be achieved without Iraq's full, active and immediate co-operation,
"Once more last Friday, the Iraqi Permanent Representative to the United Nations claimed that Iraq had no more weapons of mass destruction. It is the same old refrain that we have heard from the regime for the past 12 years. Yet whenever the inspectors have caught them out, the regime have first protested, then conceded the point, but then mendaciously claimed that there is no more.
"So the choice before us is whether we stand firm on our objective of disarmament, or settle for a policy that, in truth, allows Saddam to rebuild his arsenal under cover of just enough co-operation to keep the inspectors tied down for years to come.
"Let us not deceive ourselves. The alternative proposals before the Security Council amount to a return to the failed policy of so-called containment.
1134
But the truth is that containment can never bring disarmament, nor is it the policy of the United Nations, as expressed in Resolution 1441.
"Dr Blix reported on some further recent activity by Iraq, in respect mainly of the Al Samoud missiles. What has caused it? It is not our policy that has changed, nor international law, nor diplomatic pressure. The only thing that has changed is the willingness of the United States and the United Kingdom to deploy their armed forces for the sake of achieving the objectives set by the United Nations.
"The reality is that Saddam responds only to pressure, and the clear conclusion to draw from this is that we must further increase the pressure on him. We must put him to the test.
"The Government have made plain all along their desire to secure a peaceful outcome to the crisis. It is for this reason that I took the initiative in the Security Council last Friday to circulate a revised version of the UK/US/Spain draft second resolution. "This specifies a further period beyond the adoption of the resolution for Iraq to take the final opportunity to disarm. Negotiations on its detail have continued over the weekend. We are examining whether a list of defined tests for Iraqi compliance would be useful in helping the Council to come to a judgment."
"What we are proposing is eminently reasonable. We are not expecting Saddam to have disarmed in a week or so; but to demonstrate by that time the full, unconditional, immediate and active co-operation demanded of him by successive UN resolutions since 1991. I profoundly hope that the Iraqi regime will, even at this late stage, seize the chance to disarm peacefully. The only other peaceful alternative would be for Saddam Hussein to heed the calls of a number of other Arab leaders to go into exile and hand over to a new leadership prepared to conform with the Security Council's demands. But if it refuses to co-operate then the Security Council must face up to its responsibilities.
"In the event that military action does prove necessary, then the international community 'will have a duty to build a secure, prosperous future for the Iraqi people. Last Thursday, I met the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, to discuss the humanitarian situation and the involvement of the United Nations in any reconstruction of Iraq. At that meeting, I proposed that the UN should take the lead role in co-ordinating international efforts to rebuild Iraq and that this should be underpinned by a clear UN mandate.
"As the crisis enters this phase, there are fears that in securing Iraq's compliance with international law we may exacerbate tensions across the region. Emotions are inflamed by the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories where, tragically, there seems to be no end to the spiral of killings. Since September 2000, over 2,300 Palestinians have been killed and over 700 Israelis. We mourn the loss of life on all sides.

1135
"But we cannot allow the cycle of violence to destroy hope for a better future. There are some grounds for optimism. The international community today shares our vision of a lasting settlement, as set out in a series of SCRs: a viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 boundaries; and an Israeli state free from terror, recognised by the Arab world.
"We actively encourage both sides to meet their obligations. We are playing a full part in the international effort to help the Palestinian Authority to build more democratic institutions and a sound civil administration. I chaired a meeting in London on 14th January to discuss these issues with Palestinian leaders, representatives from the region and the quartet. The United Kingdom hosted further meetings, this time attended by Palestinian representatives in person between 18th and 20th February. I have spoken to Chairman Arafat on two occasions in the past week. I greatly welcome his decision to nominate Abu Mazen for the post as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. I hope this nomination is approved by the Palestinian Legislative Council. Abu Mazen has a fine track record in peace negotiations with Israel. We very much hope that this appointment, and other reform measures being taken by the Palestinian Authority, will help to restore a meaningful peace process, as set out in the road map devised by the quartet.
"Likewise, we look to Mr Sharon and his new team of Ministers to work with the international community in restoring hopes for peace. I shall be talking to the new Israeli Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, tomorrow.
"A lasting settlement in the Middle East would remove one great threat to security in the region and the wider world. In confronting the danger from Iraq's weapons, the UN can remove another.
"Irrespective of the choice the Iraqi regime makes, we must not let Saddam turn his 'final opportunity' to disarm into endless opportunities to delay. If he refuses to disarm peacefully, then the only sensible course for the international community is to compel him to do so by force".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this full and detailed Statement from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
This is a dangerous time for us and for the rest of the world. We all want peace, but many of us fear that as the evidence mounts of Iraq's hideous and terrible weapons, Saddam Hussein is inviting war, unless there is full compliance at the last moment—of which there is, sadly, little sign. Does not the evidence of new plans for building unmanned aircraft capable of spraying chemical and biological agents—the so-called MIG 21 RPV project—confirm that the moment of appalling revelation and truth is fast approaching? The more one
1136
studies the small print of the latest expanded UNMOVIC statement—the working document published on Friday, to which the Foreign Secretary referred—the clearer that becomes on almost every page.
This is not a time for point scoring, but I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel that I am being too reckless in observing that unity of purpose, both internationally and within our own leadership, is crucial. Divisions and disunity send a fatal message to Saddam to hold out against UN resolutions. Indeed, they have probably already sent that fatal message, possibly with disastrous results.
We on these Benches hope very much that the second resolution will be passed. Will the noble Baroness say a little more about the legal situation? Is a second resolution essential for the legal validation of any subsequent action, or would that vary depending on how the voting went? For example, a vote might get a Security Council majority but still face a French veto; or it might get a French, Russian and Chinese veto, which would be a majority of the countries among the permanent members; or it might fail to get the basic nine countries needed. We should know something about what legal advice the Government are receiving on those various circumstances, since that will enable us to judge more clearly the rights and wrongs of the path being taken.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned in his Statement a "further deadline" in the UK draft now being circulated. Does that mean a deadline to a fixed date still, or has the concept of the fixed date been abandoned?
I should make it crystal clear that, whenever the vote comes in the Security Council, this House should have a debate immediately afterwards—not before, but after the Security Council has voted. That is absolutely essential.
Looking further ahead into the crisis, will the noble Baroness say a word on Iraq reconstruction, which President Bush has promised will be "a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom"? How are we contributing to working with Americans and others under a UN mandate, if that is what it is to be, to bring about this vision of a "prosperous future", as the Foreign Secretary has just called it? Will she give us some more detail on that?
As for Israel and Palestine, we welcome all moves towards a viable Palestine and a secure Israel and hope that Chairman Arafat's appointment of a Prime Minister will help on his side. On the Israeli side, we can only note once more the futility of disproportionate violence, however great the provocation. So can Ministers continue to urge the new government in Jerusalem to reaffirm their wobbling commitment to the goal of a Palestinian state, and can they urge the Americans not to delay too long in taking new initiatives in line with the road map rather than holding off on the road map until the Iraqi crisis is over, whenever that may be?

1137
Meanwhile, we support the Prime Minister's line, eloquently advanced as it was by the Foreign Secretary at the United Nations at the end of last week. We pray that others, too, will understand the need for firm and prompt action before Saddam reaches that fatal crossroads where fanaticism and weapons of mass destruction meet and the entire world then suffers.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for allowing us to practise our speed-reading skills. The Statement is accompanied by several supporting documents and a 173-page background paper which we are recommended to read with care before we comment on the Statement. It is a good test of whether we are wide awake in the middle of the day.
I am puzzled by the very clear difference of emphasis between the report that Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei gave to the United Nations last Friday and the tone of the Foreign Secretary's speech. The Foreign Secretary said:
"It's the same old refrain we've heard from the regime for the past 12 years".
Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei said that, under pressure—and we on these Benches have always supported the concept of coercive diplomacy—the Iraqi regime has begun to make useful concessions. "As of today", Hans Blix commented,
"Iraq has … accepted that … missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision.
Just in case anyone had not noticed, he added:
"We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed".
Mohamed El Baradei said:
"In the last few weeks, Iraq has provided a considerable volume of documentation relevant 10 the issues I reported earlier as being of particular concern".
All of us accept that Iraq has not yet come into full compliance. However, it has begun to move significantly. The policy of coercive diplomacy appears to be working. I therefore have to ask the Minister whether it is now the Government's conviction, as it now appears to be the conviction of the American Administration, that coercive diplomacy is not working, that regime change is the only answer, and that we are therefore committed to war; or whether a continued policy of coercive diplomacy—over a matter of months, as Hans Blix said, not weeks or years—is the appropriate way forward.
How important do the Government regard the passing of a second resolution? The phrase "unreasonable vetoes" has been used. Does the Minister think that three vetoes, should that happen, could be regarded as unreasonable?
1138
We all recognise that this is not just about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. It is, as the US administration has said from the beginning, also about the broader politics of the Middle East, the war on terror and the Arab/Israeli situation. I was surprised to read the following in the New York Times this morning:
"Now, officials say, Bush has changed his mind and regards the pledge made in December"—
the pledge to publish the road map after the Israeli elections—"as unrealistic". The article continues:
"Among the angriest allies is Britain's prime minister, whose aides say he has pleaded with Bush to be more involved in the Israel-Palestine dispute".
In the following paragraph of the report, an unnamed European official is quoted as saying:
"Let's face it, the Road Map is dead".
Have we reached a point where the US Administration are no longer interested in bringing pressure to bear on the Israeli Government to make parallel progress on the Arab/Israeli conflict? Are we now pursuing a different policy from that of our American allies?
I turn to the question of the wider war on terrorism and how we can come to terms with the Muslim world. Some weeks ago, I asked a topical Question about the American treatment of prisoners, including the alleged treatment of prisoners on Diego Garcia. I was surprised to see, in a very well-sourced article in the New York Times, the following:
"American officials have acknowledged that the CIA has interrogation centers"—
in a number of places, including—
"at a base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean".
That appears to contradict the Government's response to my Question of some weeks ago. I would be very grateful if the Minister can tell me if she has further information on that as well.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their remarks. I very warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his remarks about my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his comments last Friday at the United Nations Security Council. I thought that the Foreign Secretary's statement was excellent. It took on the argument and answered the points, some of which were erroneous, made in the Security Council. I agree very much with the noble Lord's comment about this being a very dangerous time. I reiterate that we all want peace; he is quite right on that. I think that he was right also in his judgment that the choice here is the choice of Saddam Hussein.

1139
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised the question about the RPVs. I appreciate that he has not had these documents long. However, page 14 of the document to which my right honourable friend referred in his Statement—"Unresolved Disarmament Issues"—contains the following statement:
"Recent inspections have also revealed the existence of a drone"—
which is indeed the RPV 20 to which the noble Lord referred—
"with a wingspan of 7.45 metres that has not been declared by Iraq. Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone has been test flown".
The report goes on to say that further investigation is required into the drone. Nevertheless, the noble Lord is right that that is one of the unanswered questions—of which, as he said, there are many in almost every page of this document. When the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, says that he is puzzled by the difference in tone between the comments of Hans Blix and those of the Foreign Secretary, I would urge him to read this document very carefully. It is this document that provides the evidence. I fully concede that the position of Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei must be very difficult. They will not want to be seen to be going too much towards one side of the argument or the other. However, this document provides the evidence. It is this document that my right honourable friend thought was so important to bring to the attention today of both Houses of Parliament.
Hans Blix did say that Iraq had begun to take some useful steps. The point, however, is that Saddam Hussein always does. He always begins to take a few useful steps, but he always does so at the last minute. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that UNSCR 1441 demands the full, active and immediate co-operation of the Iraqi regime—not a few useful steps at the last minute. In no way could anyone claim that we have had full, active co-operation, and not a single speaker at the Security Council did so last week.
So we turn to the second resolution—a resolution on which the Prime Minister is working tirelessly, as is my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about the legal questions. Iraq's obligations are unambiguously set out in existing Security Council resolutions passed over the past 12 years. Iraq has consistently been in breach of them. Resolution 1441 sets out in detail the council's requirements and it makes plain to Iraq that failure to comply now will have serious consequences. The words "serious consequences" have real meaning. The United Kingdom is committed to ensuring that any military action in which we engage anywhere in the world is carried out in accordance with international law. We have made very clear our strong preference for a second resolution in the event that Saddam continues to defy the UN. But we have also made clear that we must reserve our position in the event that a second resolution proves to be unattainable. The legality of the use of force in any particular case would depend on
1140
all the circumstances at the time. I do not believe that that is any different as a policy from the policy espoused by the noble Lord's own political party.
The noble Lord asked about a deadline. There is a date stated in the draft resolution which has been circulated. Operational paragraph 3 states that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded in the resolution unless on or before 17th March 2003 the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full unconditional immediate and active co-operation. That matter is now under negotiation. It is being discussed by my right honourable friends, by our allies, by those with whom we agree and by those with whom we disagree, many of whom are also close allies. We must await the outcome of those negotiations.
The noble Lord asked about a further debate in your Lordships' House after a second resolution. We discussed the possibility of that. Indeed, I believe that it was referred to in the debate when we last discussed the matter a week last Wednesday. That would be a matter for the usual channels. If that is your Lordships' wish and that is what the usual channels decide, the Government would be happy to take that forward.
As regards the UN mandate on humanitarian issues, my right honourable friend's Statement mentioned that he had had discussions with Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, last week. We shall be guided by a number of considerations in the event that there is a decision to launch military action, which is not decided. I refer to considerations of maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq and that the Iraqi people themselves, in consultation with the international community, should generate ideas for future political arrangements for Iraq. Moreover, we would expect a successor regime to be a significant improvement on the existing one in terms of good governance and respect for human rights. We also believe that the United Nations should be at the centre of any transitional administration for Iraq. I hope that those four important points are useful to the noble Lord.
I hope that your Lordships have noted the determination of my right honourable friend, as set out in his Statement, to take forward the issues concerning Israel and Palestine. The road map is very important. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we do not believe that there is any sense in which the road map is dead. I spoke to the Foreign Secretary this morning and I believe that he has recently discussed the matter again with Secretary of State Powell. I shall return to the points the noble Lord raised about Diego Garcia.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asks whether it is now the Government's view that diplomacy is not working. I say baldly to the noble Lord that the Government's view is that diplomacy has never worked in relation to Iraqi disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. I say to the noble Lord that the only reason that we have inspections going on in Iraq at the moment is the credible threat of military force, and that military force has been put

1141
there by the United States and the United Kingdom. When the noble Lord talks of a little more time for diplomacy, it is important that he recognises that diplomacy would not and has not delivered results. The UN SCR that we are now discussing—a second one—is designed to add that extra pressure.
I was asked about unreasonable vetoes. I say to all your Lordships that we are still negotiating on these issues. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have worked tirelessly and continue to work tirelessly, as they should—that is their responsibility—at the United Nations to try to get a resolution that will enhance the possibilities of peace. The alternative is that we have to look very seriously at the possibility of taking forward military action. From the beginning no one has hidden that from anyone. I say to all your Lordships that the tireless effort of my right honourable friends deserves to be supported, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, made clear, in your Lordships' House, across government and, I believe, by the people of this country.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I note what the Minister said about the road map. However, is she aware that recent statements by President Bush hardly give one encouragement that the road map is anything other than dead? The most positive comment that I think he has said is that success in Iraq, whatever that means, could lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I have seen no evidence at all that the Americans have seriously taken on board the real importance of tackling the Arab/Israel problem without reference to Iraq. It is a serious problem. I have argued before in this House that I think it is the most serious problem in the Middle East and that it needs urgent attention. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance that the Americans have taken that on board.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am well aware of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, on that matter which I believe is echoed by many noble Lords on all sides of the House, as we have discussed on many occasions. I remind the noble Lord—I am sure that he does not need reminding, erudite as he is in these matters—that last year President Bush espoused the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. That was an important statement made last year by the President of the United States. The noble Lord may feel that some impetus has gone out of the discussions on the Middle East peace process. I point out that there have been very recent elections in Israel. Only in the past few days the Prime Minister of Israel has appointed a new Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Silvan Shalom. My right honourable friend said in his Statement that he hopes to talk to the new Israeli Foreign Minister tomorrow. The Statement makes clear that we wish to take forward the road map, which is not just an initiative of the United States but also involves the United Nations, the EU and the Russian Federation.
1142
We believe that it is the best way forward. We shall continue to argue our case vigorously, as the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have done, and as they do, both publicly and privately, with our allies in the United States.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, one aspect that has not been touched upon so far in our discussions is the role of other countries in the region in perpetuating the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. 'The question I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister concerns the build-up of personnel and arms, including, I understand, several hundred short and medium-range missiles, in southern Lebanon on Israel's northern border. Those could, if fired, reach almost every part of Israel. They are put in Lebanon not by the Lebanese but by Syria and Iran. Will the Government exert pressure on those countries to prevent them taking advantage of any conflict in Iraq as a pretext to launch an attack on Israel which would do nothing to help resolve the dispute and could serve only to exacerbate the problem for suffering Palestinians and Israelis?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course, the Government recognise that the role of other countries in the region is enormously important. We certainly did when we invited representatives of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to attend discussions in London in January on the democratic institutions in Palestine. My noble friend's point on the role of other countries is well taken. He asks whether we can exert pressure on those other countries. We make clear our view about the use of weapons in any circumstances not just in circumstances that might involve our military engagement in Iraq. This is a fundamental issue and one to which we return often in our bilateral relations with all these countries; that is, that there needs to be a scaling down not only of the spiral of violence within Palestine and Israel but also the potential for that violence with their neighbours.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, in the Statement that the Minister read to us, the Foreign Secretary said that it was not international law that had changed. Are the Government able to say what advice they are currently receiving on international law? Have they observed the declaration by 17 leading public international lawyers last week, which stated that the use of force allegedly in self-defence against Iraq without an imminent and present threat would not be other than a serious violation of public international law, or the statement by Mr Mark Littman today that the approach would be a personal violation of international world peace, for which individual Ministers would hold responsibility? Can she also say why it was felt necessary to emphasise in the Statement that we cannot have years to ensure compliance although Hans Blix made it plain that he was not seeking days or years but months in order to reach assurance of compliance? The supporting evidence for that was set out in the 173 pages to which the Minister referred, and that is what led Dr Blix to that central conclusion.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, much as we respect Dr Blix, it is not up to him to rewrite the terms of UNSCR 1441. UNSCR 1441 is clear—it demands immediate and full co-operation from Iraq. It is Dr Blix's job to report but he has not taken on the responsibility of the United Nations Security Council to decide what to do in the face of a material breach. I repeat to the noble Lord that not a single member of the United Nations Security Council last week was able to argue that Iraq is fully complying, is complying immediately or is doing so with co-operation.
I turn to the legal point that the noble Lord raised. I hope that I answered that in the response that I gave to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. However, for the sake of absolute clarity, I make it clear to the noble Lord that we are committed to ensuring that any military action that we in the United Kingdom undertake, wherever it is in the world, is carried out in accordance with international law.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, will the Minister say a word or two more about the threat of international terrorism? The Statement had little to say about that. Does she also agree that whatever may be one's hopes for and views of the United Nations organisation, where there is a credible threat to international peace and where it is perceived that the security of one's own country is in danger, it is wholly within the sovereign responsibility of the individual country to take whatever action it deems necessary to protect itself?
Finally, I refer to the United Nations organisation generally. Despite what is clearly an internationally orchestrated hate campaign against America and this country, does not the real threat to the United Nations organisation come from Saddam Hussein himself, who is in breach of resolutions, rather than from those who seek to take action to uphold integrity and to protect world peace?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Statement was about Iraq and Israel/Palestine. I take the noble Lord's point that Iraq has a long record of support for terrorism, including support for radical groups such as the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian terrorist groups such as Abu Nidal, which we have discussed in your Lordships' House, and the activities of the MEK against Iran. It also makes payments to suicide bombers' families and supported the assassination of political opponents in Iraq and abroad. Saddam Hussein tried to sponsor the assassination of ex-President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait in 1993. As UNSCR 687 makes clear, Iraq threatened to make use of terrorism and infamously held human beings as hostages and shields during the Gulf War. Of course these issues are interlinked.
The noble Lord referred to a hate campaign against the United States and ourselves and went on to say that the real threat came from Saddam Hussein. Yes, the real threat does come from Saddam Hussein; that is absolutely right. What is so difficult about this issue
1144
is the fact that Saddam Hussein has and will continue to have a pattern of behaviour by which he makes small concessions at the last moment. Those small concessions appeal to good people such as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who said, "Wait a little longer because it is all starting to work. If we wait a little longer, it will all come right in the end". That is the perfidious nature of the way in which Saddam Hussein operates. It is bound to appeal to good men and women who do not want war—none of us wants war—and who argue that if only we waited a little longer, it would all come right. I do not believe that the evidence is there to substantiate that wish.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister gave the impression that the only—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, in dealing with the legal position, the Minister referred to the concluding words of Resolution 1441. Is it not the case that the expression "serious consequences" was a compromise formula that falls short of the usual expression "use of force"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are always compromises in United Nations Security Council resolutions. I dare say that if we went through with a tooth-comb, we should find many compromises. I do not believe that when nations signed up to the terminology of "serious consequences", they had much doubt about what they were signing up to.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister gave the impression—
Lord Chalfont: My Lords—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and then from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister gave the impression from the answer in which she invoked the name of my noble friend that the only situation that we are now looking at is that of war, which seems to go against the many Government Statements that there is a prospect of peace. Although she will deny that, will she say what an unreasonable use of the veto involves? In an interview, the Prime Minister said that it might be unreasonable for one of the permanent members of the Security Council to use its veto. However, since

1145
France, China and Russia have considered the use of the veto, on what basis does the Prime Minister make that assertion?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that I gave that impression. I have gone out of my way to preface virtually everything that I have said with phrases such as, "in the event of war" and "we hope that war will be avoided". A moment or two ago, I stressed again that we all hoped that there would he peace. I referred to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, because he made a passionate point to noble Lords and I was responding to him in debate. It seems entirely reasonable to do so. The noble Lord said that I should deny his suggestion; I do deny it, but I do so because that is true.
The noble Lord referred to the use of an unreasonable veto. We are negotiating now. There could be no more crucial time in our international relations—certainly not in my experience, as a Minister of nearly six years' standing in your Lordships' House. We maximise our chances of success, which I, as a Government Minister, wish to see, by wishing our negotiators well and not by trying to predict failure of individual parts of this negotiation. I will stick with my colleagues; that is the right thing to do and that is my responsibility. It may not satisfy the noble Lord, but my answer to him is that my approach is far more likely to help to deliver the answer that I believe all noble Lords want.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would speak next, followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, should speak first and I shall speak after her.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, my mother often said that gentlemen are born, not made.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, we live in dangerous times. We all want to see the United Nations come through this dire situation intact for the future. On no fewer than three occasions during her responses, the Minister spoke of negotiations taking place on the second resolution. I wholly agree with and support that. If what the newspapers say is true, I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, is, as we speak, on her second visit to Africa as part of such a negotiation process. Therefore, does the Minister agree with me that it was most injudicious, possibly even reckless, for a Minister in the Department for International Development to undertake such a trip in the knowledge that the Secretary of State for International Development has said that she would resign if a second resolution were not signed? Surely that takes away some legitimacy,
1146
integrity and ability of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, to negotiate a peaceful solution to this dreadful situation. We all know that Hussein will not back down until we are knocking on his door.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Dean that this is a dangerous time and that negotiations on a second resolution are at a crucial stage. I am sure that the whole House joins me in wishing my noble friend Lady Amos Godspeed in her discussions with colleagues in three African countries. She has great experience in Africa; she has good relationships with those in Africa; and I believe that she will be able to talk to people in terms of partnership based on experience and on her relationships. I do not believe, as I have read in some newspapers, that she will try to induce support through unwarranted pressure. I am sure that my noble friend will make an excellent case to those to whom she speaks.
I am sure that my noble friend, Lady Dean, will understand if I say that I do not wish to add to the column inches on discussions on her second point. However, I agree with everything that she said about unity of purpose at this difficult time.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there would be catastrophic effects on the future peaceful behaviour of the world if America were forced to back down by an unholy alliance, a French self-seeking movement? For the French Foreign Minister, whose views on Napoleon are, "What a pity he did not succeed at Waterloo", to be giving lectures to the rest of the world on American behaviour strikes some of us francophiles as rather unpleasant. The consequences of the Americans being forced to hack down will mean allowing a man to get away with starving babies to death, letting them wither at the breasts of their mothers and then shooting their mothers—that is Ann Clwyd speaking, not me. I am also reminded of the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, on the Marsh Arabs. Those messages should be brought home to the French and the Russians time and time again. The consequences of doing nothing are far worse than the consequences of doing something.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that we are at a serious juncture, not just in terms of what is happening in relation to Iraq, but also in terms of the future health of international relations, as the noble Earl said. It is a crucial, difficult time. I have not read the French Foreign Minister on Napoleon, although from previous discussions with the noble Earl I know that he has—I believe he may have learned it off by heart. That makes the position of my right honourable friend on the United Nations Security Council last Friday so important; it was important for him to answer the points raised so forcefully by Mr de Villepin. He did so clearly in his excellent speech, a copy of which is in your Lordships' Library. I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in some of the comments made about the

1147
problem, far too much emphasis is placed on the present, dangerous and real as those dangers may be, and not enough emphasis is placed on the future? As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, surely we shall be faced with a grave danger in the future if weapons of mass destruction, which we now know to be in the possession of Saddam Hussein, come together with international religious fanaticism, making the world a hideously more dangerous place than it is now. Then it will be too late to do anything about it. Is the Minister aware that despite some of the demonstrations and other protestations that have been made about the policies of the Prime Minister, many people closer to the matter believe that the Prime Minister is behaving with great intellectual clarity and great political courage?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for those closing remarks. The noble Lord is concerned that there is too much emphasis on the present. There is bound to be such an emphasis at the moment because we are facing a situation in which Saddam Hussein has to decide whether he will disarm his weapons of mass destruction peacefully or whether he will force a military conflict on the rest of us.
Of course, there are concerns about the spread of weapons of mass destruction and fanaticism, as the noble Lord characterised it, or the terrorism spoken of in other parts of your Lordships' House. The great worry must be about weapons of mass destruction slipping into the hands of groups who have allied themselves with the destruction of the United States or with attacks upon the United States and this country. Those issues are important. I also believe that an enormously important issue is the future of Iraq, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, mentioned. The integrity of the state of Iraq, its future stability, the immediate humanitarian needs of the country and the longer-term reconstruction are all matters that my right honourable friend has discussed not only in New York last week, but also, as one would expect, in contingency planning, as we discussed in our debate on Iraq about 10 days ago. They are important issues for the future.

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
5.29 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) a patient has limited mental capacity, a procedure exists to appoint an independent advocate."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now make the transition from important international matters to rather more mundane domestic matters. Nevertheless,
1148
I believe that we return to an issue that is important and which deserves the fair consideration of this House.
With Amendment No. 4 we turn to an issue that was debated, although not to any great extent, during Committee stage—mental incapacity. Frequently, noble Lords make the point that in this country we do not have comprehensive legislation about the care of people who have reduced mental capacity—legislation that would enable a health or welfare attorney to be involved in decision-making when people are mentally frail and cannot take decisions for themselves.
Amendment No. 4 attempts to ensure that people who lack the capacity to make an informed decision are not just automatically referred to social services. Currently, there is a gap in the legal definitions of "capacity" and "protection". This is one of many instances where we address that gap. At present if a patient is unable to give consent—and I am very glad that the House took the decision that consent was required—relatives can be consulted, but no one can consent on the patient's behalf to such a referral. It is good practice to consult with relatives and carers about their knowledge of what a patient might want.
The amendment allows for existing statutory procedures for advocacy and surrogate decision-making to be brought into the framework of discharge planning. As we have said previously, fines will make a significant change to the context in which decisions about discharge take place. We on these Benches are concerned that the most vulnerable people in our society do not become—in the words of many noble Lords—"commodities".
Most patients and many carers do not realise that if they disagree with a decision they have the right to request a panel review, in particular, when the decision is that they no longer require NHS continuing care and that their discharge will be "safe". We debated the matter in Committee. Ministers talked about the issue being addressed by guidance and by common law pre-suppositions. However, the majority of good practice issued by the Department of Health is general guidance, which is not issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. There is no specific provision in the National Health Service Act 1977 which clarifies the status of such guidance.
As regards the issue of consent, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said that informed consent is a legal doctrine that has been developed by the courts over a number of years, particularly in the context of medical experimentation. It is hard to see how it applies to the situation of delayed discharges and the patient's onward journey into further care. It is therefore important to remember, as the noble Baroness said, that the NHS does not have the right to force services on to a patient. That is correct in so far as surrogate decisions can be made when a patient lacks the required mental capacity.
We all know in this country that there is a growing incidence of dementia, in particular of Alzheimer's disease. It is important that those people are subject to specific protection when the complex issue of

1149
discharge and future care is being considered. That is important because the Alzheimer's Disease Society has reported incidents of patients being discharged from hospital having suffered a lack of personal care.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society's report of, I believe, two years ago, cited incidents of people with Alzheimer's leaving hospital malnourished. It was not that they had not been given food, but they had not been fed. The food would be brought and left at the end of their beds. It would be assumed that because they had not touched it they did not want it. They did not touch it because they did not know it was there and what it was. That occurrence is not widespread but is on the increase. In that context it is important that we should consider having a requirement for an advocate for someone who does not have the mental capacity to make the informed choices that they would otherwise make. For those reasons, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very sympathetic to the noble Baroness's intention in tabling the amendment. She spoke about patients with Alzheimer's disease. That and of her appalling cases of bad practice must be addressed. They go beyond the issues of advocacy and to the heart of good nursing care and good care in hospitals in general. The amendment addresses the reality that there will be cases where patients are unable to express a preference for themselves. The normal way to proceed in such cases is for the NHS or the local authority to act on the preferences expressed by a carer in the same way that they would on the patient's own wishes.
There is no statutory guidance to the 1977 Act because the NHS does not issue statutory guidance: directions are issued and action is taken in that way. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is no statutory guidance per se. However, there is a long-standing principle in common law that public bodies must act in the best interests of people whose capacity to consent or understand the reason for certain treatment is diminished. It is reasonable to expect that the NHS and councils will continue to abide by that principle. Nothing in the Bill undermines it.
The point that this may not always work has already been recognised. We have put a new premium on patient involvement because we believe that that is better than appointing advocates for different purposes. The Department of Health already recommends that the NHS and councils should consider making independent advocacy available to service users. That can he where there appears to be a conflict of interest or opinion between the patient and their carer, or where the person involved needs this kind of support—for example, if the patient suffers from dementia or has a learning disability. Therefore, in the cases cited by the noble Baroness a procedure already exists.
In Committee, I spoke about the development of patient advice and liaison services. It is very important to recognise that it is a new development, which is definitely accessible and available in the NHS and does not need to be searched for. I know that the noble
1150
Baroness has some personal experience of the usefulness of such services. Where appropriate, PALS can refer to independent or specialist advocacy services. For hospital patients with a concern about their assessment for social care, they can provide a first point of contact. However, local authorities are required to inform people of what to expect in dealing with them and to provide information about their entitlement to services and how to complain. That is set out clearly in our Better Care, Higher Standards, published in 1999, and in Fair Access to Care Services, issued in May 2002.
I am pleased to be able to say that progress with PALS has been sustained across the country. We now know that 90 per cent of the country is covered by the service. Obviously, it will be monitored to make sure that it is working as well as we expect. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that, in the absence of a specific advocacy service, we have acted to put in place an accessible and useful procedure for the patients and their families under these circumstances.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her characteristically thoughtful reply. I do not wish to go over the many arguments about PALS that have taken place in your Lordships' House. I shall ask the Minister about the independent complaints advocacy service. My understanding is that ICAS is at the moment in a pilot phase. I think there is an issue about its continuance. Perhaps the noble Baroness can write to me on that.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am advised that the ICAS will be in place nationally on 1st September,
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says; I am not sure in what form it will be in place, but that may be a discussion for another day.
I remain concerned that a service that has more to do with helping people to find their way in a practical way around the NHS day to day—as is PALS—is perhaps not the level of service needed. I have listened to what the noble Baroness said; I shall study her reply; and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) Before giving a notice under this section the responsible NHS body must consult—

(a) the patient; and

(b) if the body is aware of the identity of a person who )s a carer in respect of the patient and it is reasonably practicable to consult him, that carer."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 25. In some respects, the amendments are a tidying-up measure. In others, they are a response to concern expressed by noble Lords for greater clarity. In any event, I apologise to your Lordships' House that they were not available earlier.
The tidying-up elements derive from the fact that additions to the Bill have made Clause 2 over-long. Moreover, it has become more difficult to follow all the steps with reference to a Section 2 notice, the circumstances in which it will be issued and withdrawn and, indeed, the circumstances under which a fresh assessment will be made. So the three amendments bring those elements together in a new clause that includes within it the provisions of what was previously Clause 3(7). Amendment No. 25 therefore removes the repetition between existing Clauses 2 and 3 and the new clause.
The new clause also contains two changes that have been made to clarify the conditions under which Section 2 notices will be withdrawn. Again, that is in response to concerns raised in Committee. Given the possibility for confusion when reading between old and new clauses, perhaps I should explain what the changes involve. I shall try to do so as clearly as possible.
New Clause 2(3) now gives NHS bodies a blanket power to withdraw the Section 2 notice. That replaces and widens what was formerly in Clause 3(7). The regulation-making power under new subsection (3) enables regulations to set conditions under which a notice may be withdrawn. Those are circumstances in which the NHS will need to use its judgment about whether the services originally prescribed continue to be appropriate—in large measure, because they are no longer sufficient to meet the changing needs of the patient. That was previously covered in Clause 3(7) by the term, "change of circumstances".
However, under Clause 3(7), the regulations were limited to prescribing circumstances in which the notice might be withdrawn. We have now gone further. New subsection (5)(b) specifies that the regulations must also contain reference to circumstances in which the notice must be withdrawn.
There are a relatively limited number of examples of such circumstances, but we have been concerned that if it were only left to the NHS judging—or remembering—to withdraw notices, it might not happen. For example, we want to remove the possibility of a patient having died or left hospital without social services having been informed, entirely through oversight.
Sadly, that is not such a far-fetched example; such things have happened; but we believe that the new provision will ensure that there is a clearer requirement for proper communication between health and social care partners. As I said, circumstances that may be specified in the regulations as falling within the category that would require early discharge include a
1152
rapid recovery or significant change in home circumstances—for example, a patient being taken care of by a relative who had not previously been identified.
Noble Lords will also note the term "fresh notice" in new subsection (4)(b). That has been included in response to concerns that the previous term used in Clause 3(7)—"further notice"—was insufficiently clear. The subsection covers instances in which the notice would cease to have effect before the patient was discharged. Examples include where circumstances take a turn for the worse and the patient deteriorates or has a relapse that keeps him in hospital; or where his home circumstances are no longer appropriate—perhaps following the death of a spouse or a carer having to leave for some reason. In those circumstances, a fresh notice may need to be issued. That provision leaves the NHS and social services in no doubt of their duty.
The final change in new subsection (5)(a)(ii) is also proposed in response to earlier suggestions that we had not been as specific about the nature of a withdrawal of a notice as we had been about initial notification. That change will ensure that the regulations will require a similar clarity of communication in the manner in which notices are to be issued and withdrawn. Under that subsection, the NHS will have to be clear about the circumstances that dictate withdrawal of a notice and ensure that social services are fully informed.
The amendments are slightly complicated, but I hope that noble Lords will accept that we have tried to respond to legitimate concerns to clarify and expand on Clause 3(7). I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for explaining the amendments, which are welcome because they address at least some of the concern that I and other noble Lords expressed in Committee about the Bill's lack of fairness in its treatment of local authorities. It cannot be reasonable or right that a local authority, having been served a Section 2 notice, should proceed to put together a care package—with all the time and effort that that involves—only to discover that, unbeknown to it, there has been a change of circumstances and the patient no longer requires community care services after all, or requires different community care services. There must be proper communication and a duty on the NHS body to communicate to ensure that local authorities do not incur nugatory costs. I am pleased that that point has been recognised.
Of course, we do not have the draft regulations before us, but the Minister's comments suggest that there will need to be a tight procedure in hospitals to determine whether a patient's circumstances have changed—and, if so, in what way—so that the original Section 2 notice does not simply run on by default for longer than necessary. I hope that the Minister will confirm that regulation will specify a procedure to

1153
review Section 2 notices at set intervals—perhaps daily—and for the conclusion of those reviews to be recorded, along with the reasons for them.
If there is not such an automatic trigger or process for formal review, hospitals will let matters run on, ignoring what the local authority may be doing to organise a care home place, home care, or whatever, and leaving the withdrawal of the Section 2 notice until the last minute. The regulations must force the hospital to be proactive rather than reactive. I hope that the Minister will agree to ensure that that is done.
What happens if the NHS body fails to act as it should where Section 2 notices must under the regulations be withdrawn? What happens if the local authority incurs fruitless costs and has legitimate cause for complaint against the hospital for not having informed it of the change of circumstances? Can that matter be brought before a dispute panel? Will the local authority be able to claim reimbursement of its costs from the hospital? Frankly, I do not see why it should not be able to. The system is being set up to try to relieve the NHS of unnecessary costs. Why should the principle not be recognised when local authorities are affected by it as a result of NHS negligence?
Baroness Barker: My Lords. I thank the noble Baroness for her further clarification. It is extremely welcome, particularly at this time, when health and social care agencies are learning the lessons of the Climbie inquiry. I wish to ask two questions. The first, which we discussed to an extent in Committee, is the form that the notice will take. Will it be given by consultants, or will it be appended to patients' notes? The second relates to the issue of a named person. Sometimes, when discharges go wrong, a key factor is lack of understanding between the care agencies as to who they should deal with in an acute hospital—for example, is it a consultant or a discharge officer? Is it possible to take the welcome clarity a step further?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I understand that the form of notice is still under discussion. I shall let the noble Baroness know as soon as we know the outcome of deliberations. The person responsible for discharge is named in the regulations, so I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied on that point.
I cannot answer the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the set intervals for review under the regulations, not having had advance sight of the regulations. But we will come back to him on the matter, as we will on reimbursement. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"NOTICES UNDER SECTION 2: SUPPLEMENTARY
(1) A notice under section 2 remains in force until the patient to which it relates is discharged, unless it has previously ceased to have effect by virtue of subsection (2) or (3).
(2) The responsible NHS body may withdraw the notice by giving notice of withdrawal to the responsible authority.
(3) Regulations may prescribe other circumstances in which the notice ceases to have effect.
(4) If the notice ceases to have effect before the patient is discharged—

(a) no further steps under section 3, (Duties of responsible NHS body following notice under section 2), or 4 resulting from the notice shall be taken and no liability (or further liability) to make a payment under section 4(4) shall accrue; and

(b)the responsible NHS body may (subject to section 2(1)) give a fresh notice under section 2 in relation to the patient;

but paragraph (a) does not affect any liability which accrues before the notice ceases to have effect.
(5) Regulations may provide for—

(a) the form and content of—

(i) notices under section 2; and

(ii) notices of withdrawal under subsection (2), and the manner in which such notices are to be given;

(b) circumstances in which notices under section 2 must be withdrawn; and

(c) determining the day on which a notice under section 2 or a notice of withdrawal under subsection (2) is given (including provision prescribing circumstances in which a notice under section 2 is to be treated for any specified purpose as having been given on a day other than that on which it was in fact given)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Duties arising where a notice under section 2 is given]
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert "and there has been a decision made that the patient will not require continuing NHS health care other than services provided by the NHS under section 3(8), and a record made of why the patient is considered not to meet each of the criteria for such care, and the patient has been informed of his right of review of this decision."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. NHS continuing care has been an important issue for several years but has come to prominence in the past two weeks because of the report by the health ombudsman, NHS Funding for Long Term Care. Many discharged patients simply do not receive the continuing NHS-funded care to which they are entitled. In many cases, either the local authority or an individual ends up paying for care when the responsibility should lie with the NHS. At present, people can be treated very differently even though their circumstances—for example, the state of their health—may be similar.
It is unfortunately necessary for me to talk at considerable length about the matter. There is increasing confusion between terms with different meanings, such as NHS continuing care and nursing care. It is important that the distinction is clarified. When the discharge of a patient is reviewed, there should be an assessment for continued NHS care, with a record of how any decision has been reached, prior to any assessment by social services. This amendment, combined with a later one on the single assessment process, is designed to achieve that. Unless the initial decision is correctly made, social services could take responsibility for people who should remain the responsibility of the NHS. Although that applies

1155
equally to people who require NHS care when they are at home, it is particularly applicable to care in nursing homes.
The issue is much wider than delayed discharges. But it is essential that Parliament looks at the matter, particularly during consideration of this Bill, given the ombudsman's report. The report highlights the deficiencies in deciding when a person should be fully funded by the NHS in a nursing home and remain its responsibility, even if he or she no longer needs to be in hospital. Local authorities need to be clear that the NHS criteria used locally should be in line with the law and guidance and properly adhered to in the decision-making process. If that does not happen, local authorities might take responsibility for people whose needs are beyond the scope of a care package. They may incorrectly face fines if there is a delay in provision of social care.
We suggest that an independent body be given powers to scrutinise the criteria for NHS continuing care and its application. That would achieve consistent criteria and consistency of criteria application across the board. Such a change would be in line with the health ombudsman's recommendation to ensure that the NHS keeps clear records on how initial decisions are made on whether continuing NHS healthcare is needed. The Bill should be used to establish a duty to carry out an independent scrutiny of the criteria for NHS continuing care and its application. The Bill would also establish a clear path for patients who disagree with a decision that they do not require continuing NHS healthcare and a fast-track dispute system for patients.
The boundaries between NHS continuing care, which is free of charge at the point of use, and care provided either by social services or a self-funder are grey. However, it is a huge issue with huge ramifications for the NHS, social services and patients. The health ombudsman made clear in her recent report that there may be a widespread problem and considerable financial loss to individuals, given the cost of paying for care that should be funded by the NHS. The role of social services as a provider of long-term care is limited by statute to accommodation and ancillary services. It should not provide care services that relate to healthcare needs. Although nursing care provided by registered nurses is now the legal responsibility of the NHS, the funding regime provides only a contribution to free nursing, which is often absorbed in higher nursing-care needs; otherwise, the costs of long-term healthcare are in the main met inappropriately and sometimes unlawfully by social services charges.
In 1994, the then health ombudsman found that the NHS had retreated too far from providing long-term care. As a result of those findings, new guidance was issued by the Department of Health in HSG 1995/08. That set out the framework within which the then health authorities were to develop their own criteria for continuing care. When concerns came to light that some criteria were operated over-restrictively, further guidance in the form of an executive letter was issued.
In 1999, the Court of Appeal in the Coughlan case found that although the law allowed social services departments to take responsibility for some nursing care when a person was in a care home, it depended on whether it was,
(i) merely incidental or ancillary to the provision of the accommodation which a local authority was under a duty to provide",
and/or,
(ii) of a nature which it could be expected that an authority whose primary responsibility was to provide social services could be expected to provide".
The Court of Appeal was clear that just because a resident at a nursing home does not require in-patient treatment at a hospital does not mean that his or her care should not be the responsibility of the NHS. Some, because of their health needs, should be regarded as wholly the responsibility of a health authority. The Court of Appeal went on to say that the difficulty is in identifying the cases which are required to be placed in that category on their facts in order to comply with statutory provision.
The issue is the degree of care that can be described as being only ancillary or incidental. Noble Lords will know, because they have spent many hours during the passage of different Bills discussing it, how difficult it is to draw that distinction. However, in her report, the ombudsman made two important findings: first, the guidance issued by the Department of Health is unclear; and, secondly, the local policies operated by health authorities include criteria that may be applied differently to people who have similar needs.
We have tabled the amendment now because, when people are being discharged from hospital, it is of fundamental importance that there should be an assessment of their continuing NHS care needs. They should have a right to appeal against any judgment not just on the basis of the application of the criteria but on the basis of the criteria themselves. In another place, on Report, the Minister, Jacqui Smith, said:
"the first decision that should be made in the assessment process is whether patients are eligible and entitled to NHS continuing care … If patients want to dispute that, they can appeal to the continuing care panel".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/03; col. 741.]
Although that is a welcome assurance, the health ombudsman's report indicates that there are two further issues: the decision that a patient does not require continued NHS healthcare could be flawed if the criteria are too restrictive; and the application of those criteria may be incorrect.
The ombudsman's report refers to the cases of people who are being denied continued NHS care when their healthcare needs are almost identical to those cited by the Government as making them eligible for the highest band of nursing care. It would be a positive step to have records of how decisions are made and to have clarity in the Bill about the dividing line between NHS-funded care in nursing homes and continuing care. At the moment, there is great

1157
confusion, and people are being treated differently—almost by lottery—from others who have exactly the same condition.
There is one more reason for addressing the issue now. Throughout my speech, I have spoken about health authorities, and all existing legislation refers to health authorities. However, the question of who is responsible for making the assessment for NHS continuing care is of key importance. It will no longer lie with health authorities—in future, it may lie with foundation hospitals—and it is important that the process by which the decision is made is clear and complies with national criteria. That is why we move the amendment. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, because of recent experience of trying to help an old friend who has faced exactly the circumstances that the noble Baroness described.
The greatest problems are found in cases of mental ill health, in which there needs to be the continuing prescription of fairly heavy drugs to prevent self-injury or injury to others. Social services are fond of declaring that they do not have the resources to look after such persons and that they do not have placements into which they can securely be put. In the case of a person who is sectioned and must remain in locked accommodation with nursing care, there is an ongoing battle that is revisited every six months or so by the social work department because the NHS is unwilling to pay and social services say that they do not have the money. We should not allow such a circumstance to continue. It has created great trauma in the case of a man who has tried four times—on home leave or when they tried to let him go home from hospital—to commit suicide in front of his wife. The social worker said that he needed neither nursing care nor secure care, when the consultant psychiatrist claimed that he did. That shows how bad circumstances have become.
I shall not pursue the matter at length, but, many years ago, when I dealt with such cases, we usually found an easier way to resolve matters. That may have been because I was in another place, not here. Now, it is becoming a fight. In the case to which I referred, the carer has a sick husband—a highly intelligent sick husband—to look after and suffers greatly. The carer also looks after her 94 year-old mother. In such a circumstance, the case outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is at one with the reality faced by ordinary people, particularly in the case of mental ill health. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 10 and have added my name to it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey for the vivid light that she was able to cast on an important issue.
The recent report by the health ombudsman makes for a shocking read. I am sorry to say—it emerged clearly from what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker,
1158
said—that the Department of Health comes out of the report with little credit. Since 1995, four edicts of one kind or another have emanated from Richmond House: the 1995 guidance; an executive letter in 1996; interim guidance following the Coughlan judgment; and yet more guidance in 2001. Despite all that, the ombudsman found that at local level the criteria to determine eligibility for NHS continuing care were being followed wrongly; the criteria were, in any case, not in accordance with central guidance: health authorities had done little or nothing to remedy that; and the Department of Health, in its turn, had done nothing to hold health authorities to account for their shortcomings.
In the Coughlan hearing, the Court of Appeal found that the earlier guidance was unhelpful, because it did not provide unequivocal pointers by which the rules could be correctly implemented, hence the revised guidance that followed. But in her report, the ombudsman says:
"The long awaited further guidance in June 2001 gives no clearer definition than previously of when continuing NHS healthcare should be provided: if anything it is weaker … I would find it even harder now to judge whether criteria were out of line with current guidance. Such an opaque system cannot he fair".
That is an appalling indictment, and it is perhaps not surprising that, despite having no formal jurisdiction over the Department of Health, the ombudsman took it upon herself—unusually—to recommend that the department took certain remedial actions.
One thing is clear: the system is an utter mess. 'We need to hear from the Minister how he thinks the system of reimbursements foreshadowed by the Bill can be brought into operation smoothly and efficiently, if the procedures for assessing a patient's eligibility for continuing NHS care are in such a shambles. The answer is that it cannot. Step 1 must be to sort that out. Even if the Department of Health were to agree with the ombudsman and decide to promulgate fresh, crystal-clear guidance, the process for drafting the guidance, consulting on it, finalising it and training people up to follow it would, at best, take several months: it cannot be done in a hurry.
Therefore, for the Government to say that they are prepared to countenance only a six month delay on the implementation of the Bill, instead of the year that the House insisted upon three weeks ago, I would suggest is pie in the sky. How can a system like that be allowed to commence when the chances of a hospital making a mistake about the need for social service involvement are so high? The financial consequences of such an error—to the local authority certainly, but more importantly to the patient—are potentially so serious that it would be irresponsible to bring the Bill into force without first resolving the issue of continuing care. I put that to the Government today as they decide what to do about the amendment made in your Lordships' Committee.
On 15th January in another place, Jacqui Smith said:
"The first decision that should be made in the assessment process is whether patients are eligible and entitled to NHS continuing care".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/03; col. 741.]

1159
I could not agree with the Minister more. That is exactly what should happen. That is why Amendment No. 10 has been tabled. Apart from the main thrust of her criticisms, the health ombudsman was concerned that in the hospitals she looked at there was no documentation to establish how the hospital reached the conclusion that the patient did or did not fall within the criteria for continuing NHS care. Proper recording procedures in every trust are surely essential. That recommendation, too, has been followed up in the wording of Amendment No. 10.
If the provisions of the Bill are to work, the whole system must be transparent and clear to everyone—practitioners, social services and patients. Transparency of decision-making depends on clear and consistent guidance being in place. Without that, we are at severe risk of encumbering and penalising local authorities unfairly, and pauperising patients without justification. That is the issue. I hope that the Minister will take note.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this is an important matter. It may be helpful if I respond to this group of amendments by first explaining to noble Lords how the Government are responding to the ombudsman's report. I believe that it sets the context in which we can discuss these amendments. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, I recognise that the problems concerning the boundary between health and social care, disagreements between statutory authorities which have a direct impact on the service that people receive and the risk—as the noble Baroness describes it—of people falling through the net between different statutory authorities, must be tackled with vigour.
One reason for introducing the Bill relates to delayed discharge, ensuring that health and social care work together and that there are no gaps. I believe that the introduction of the single-assessment process is one of the great foundations of trying to ensure that there is no gap between social care and the health service and that people are not treated in the way that the noble Baroness described. Certainly, I accept that the report of the ombudsman is serious and that my department should pay a great deal of attention to it.
Perhaps I may now turn to a number of recommendations made by the ombudsman. The first question is: will the department recommend that all continuing care cases since 1996 are reviewed? In August 2002, in response to a case featured in the ombudsman's report, the Department of Health instructed all strategic health authorities to review previous continuing care criteria and agree new criteria across their boundaries. The department has reiterated to strategic health authorities their responsibility to review continuing care criteria and agree with local councils one set of criteria within their area.
On 27th February, Sir Nigel Crisp, Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health, issued an instruction to the NHS to complete its work, to agree
1160
with local councils one set of criteria for continuing care in line with the guidance issued by the department in June 2001 and to report back to the department by 28th March with details of the final criteria agreed. Each strategic health authority is required to report back to the department by that same date with details of whether continuing care criteria, in use since 1996, were consistent with the Coughlan judgment. If the criteria were not consistent with that judgment, when was that identified and what action has been taken? In addition, the strategic health authority was asked to give an estimate of the number of people who may have been wrongly assessed under criteria not consistent with that judgment. The ombudsman's report has been sent to all strategic health authorities and social service inspectorate regional offices.
As regards the current guidance and the critique of it by the ombudsman, the Government are to consider the recommendations. We shall review the guidance carefully. The ombudsman's report acknowledges the difficulty of setting fair and easily comprehensive criteria. In Coughlan, the court stated that a clear line between responsibilities of the NHS and local authorities was difficult to draw. Each case should be judged on its own particular circumstance. We shall be looking at those matters very carefully.
In respect of monitoring and checking criteria, I said that all strategic health authorities have been sent copies of the report directly. We expect them to agree new criteria which reflect the Coughlan judgment and ensure a consistent approach to the issue. The Government will pay careful attention to how that is undertaken.
I turn now to the substance of the amendments. Throughout the Bill, we have been clear in our understanding that the first decision in the assessment process is whether someone needs continuing care. That should be done by the relevant NHS body before issuing a Section 2 notice. As pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that was emphasised by my honourable friend Mrs Jacqui Smith on Report in another place. There is no doubt that the ombudsman's report highlighted not only problems in four parts of the country, it also identified problems in the assessment process. I readily accept that trusts are not always sufficiently informed of the assessment process and the eligibility criteria. That is a point which we must take seriously.
Therefore, as a result, today I am committing the Government to ensuring that in the regulations governing the form of a Section 2 notice, the NHS will be required to confirm in the Section 2 notice that an assessment for fully-funded NHS continuing care has been carried out before that notice is issued. In making that statement to your Lordships' House today, I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that we expect the assessment of continuing care to be made first, before a Section 2 notice can be issued.
It will not then be possible for anyone who could require NHS continuing care to be discharged to social services before an assessment, informed by the single-assessment process, has been carried out. By placing

1161
what effectively amounts to requirements on the NHS in regulations to assess the continuing care, that will make it easier for us to revisit and strengthen this provision should it be necessary. Although I have sympathy with the intention of Amendment No. 10, I do not believe that it is required in the light of the commitment that I have given.
The effect of Amendment No. 33 would be to require the commission for healthcare audit and inspection to inspect the criteria for continuing healthcare and their application, along with payments for NHS-funded nursing care, and to take action where they are restrictive.
Again, while I understand completely what the amendment is driving at, I do not think it is necessary. I want to assure noble Lords that we are already acting to ensure that the criteria for continuing healthcare are inspected. We have asked CHAI if the inspection of the national service framework for older people could include reference to continuing care within the examination of person-centred care and age discrimination. I have referred already to the review being undertaken by strategic health authorities of the continuing care criteria. We shall look closely at the reports from the health service due by 28th March.
On the application of criteria, the ombudsman did not actually recommend scrutiny of the application of criteria in the future, but she did recommend that the department's guidance should he reviewed and that the assessment of eligibility for continuing care should be linked with the single assessment process. I have already explained that we are taking measures to strengthen assessment at the point of hospital discharge and that we are already taking practical action to address the issues raised by this amendment.
There is a further reason why I would suggest that the amendment would not work well. The department's current guidance states that:
"The Coughlan case illustrated that decisions about the respective responsibilities of the NHS and social care must be made on the basis of a careful assessment of the facts in each individual case. This should be borne in mind at all times".
The law has not changed to allow us to say anything different and any actions to scrutinise the application of criteria must remember it. Is it really feasible to review the application of criteria in every single case? Surely it is better to ensure that the framework within which these decisions are made fully reflects the Coughlan judgment. Strengthening assessment and making strategic health authorities agree new Coughlan-compliant criteria will do that.
Again, the last part of the amendment on scrutinising NHS nursing care payments is not necessary. We have the system in place already. We said in guidance that people entering a nursing home after October 2001 should have their needs assessed within three months and every 12 months after that, or when there is a significant change in their health status. A formal review can be requested if people are dissatisfied with the amount of care they are receiving from a registered nurse, and a further determination of
1162
nursing care needs carried out. The strategic health authority's continuing care panel may also review any determination of care by a registered nurse.
I should also remind noble Lords that the reason we have three bands of nursing care is to ensure that people receive the care they need. During the first 12 months of the scheme very few reviews were carried out, suggesting that any complaints were resolved at the local level. So we already have a system, with reviews on a case by case basis, to provide people with the nursing care they need.
In conclusion, I do not underestimate the importance of the matters that have been raised by noble Lords in our debate. However, my assurance is that in the regulations—the draft of which noble Lords have seen already—we shall ensure that, in governing the form of a Section 2 notice, the NHS will be required to confirm in the notice that the assessment for fully-funded NHS continuing care has been carried out. Alongside that is the action we are taking in the light of the ombudsman's report, including the review of what has happened in the NHS and the reports that will be submitted to the department by the end of March. I hope that I have been able to assure noble Lords that we are taking this matter extremely seriously.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full response. We all agree that the amendments cover an extremely complex area of law, one which has important implications for older people, for the NHS and for social services. I take some comfort from what the Minister has said, but in other areas I have to say that I have remaining doubts.
I am not convinced that within the timetable outlined by the Minister strategic health authorities will be able to determine whether judgments, often made by predecessor bodies rather than by the authorities themselves, will be Coughlan compliant. At the heart of the ombudsman's report the strong observation was made that both local criteria and the guidance from the department itself were insufficiently clear to enable those judgments to be made. I think I am correct that the Minister did not say that the work to be carried out prior to 28th March will be on the basis of new guidance from the Department of Health. Given that, I doubt whether it will be possible for authorities to go back and ensure that all cases dating from the time we are discussing are in fact compliant.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The strategic health authorities were asked to undertake this exercise last August because we were aware of the import of the cases being investigated by the ombudsman. They have had a certain period of time. I hope and expect that they will respond in an effective manner.
I sought to make clear that the law is not going to change; it is a question of how the law is interpreted. On a number of occasions, we have attempted to explain, in particular to the health service, what we consider the law to be. The noble Baroness will know

1163
that in Annex C of the current guidance are set out the key issues to consider when establishing continuing NHS healthcare eligibility criteria. I recognise that the ombudsman has pointed out that perhaps those criteria could be clearer. We shall look at that. However, when considering the guidance, I think it is understandable and makes clear what is expected. Furthermore, I believe that if NHS authorities had followed the principles enunciated in the guidance, they would not have got themselves into difficulties over Coughlan interpretation. We shall see. But I do not believe that it will be an impossible task for strategic health authorities to undertake a review in the light of the current guidance.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those words, but I have to say that his optimism is rather stronger than mine, not least because in the days following the ombudsman's report, strategic health authorities were referring people to primary care trusts for guidance on the matter. When practice on the ground is at such a level, I think that we are facing a real problem. I repeat, older people do face real problems; the ombudsman's report was all about that.
As regards the noble Lord's point about NHS nursing care guidance, his response was perhaps less than I had hoped for. The ombudsman's report made the position clear: given the similarity of the cases, it is necessary for the guidance to be revised. That may not be reflected in the number of individual complaints being made about the level of free nursing care that people have been prescribed, although I think that that has more to do with a complete lack of familiarity with the system.
I do not think it is possible to overstate the importance of this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was absolutely right to draw to the attention of the House the effect of this on people with mental incapacity. The case listed as "A" in the ombudsman's report referred to a person with Alzheimer's disease. The account made detailed points, such as whether it was ancillary to that person's care that he be helped with feeding, for example.
I shall go away and read in Hansard what the Minister has said. We shall return to this issue—not least because we wish to ensure that this ombudsman's report does not suffer the same fate as the previous one of being kicked into touch for a considerable time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 40, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said My Lords, Amendment No. 11 seeks to remove from Clause 3 the current subsection (2) in relation to the withdrawal of Clause 2 notices. This is now included in the new clause that we discussed in relation to the previous amendment, which brings together all the actions associated with Clause 2 notices.
Amendment No. 27 seeks to remove subsections (8) to (10), which cover NHS duties following a Clause 2 notice. They are now included in the new clause after Clause 3, which brings together all the NHS duties—that is, duties in regard to consulting on the NHS services to be provided to the patient, giving notice of the proposed discharge date and details of how and when the notice of the discharge date should be given. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I speak—I hope much more briefly than before—to Amendments Nos. 12, 17, 18, 19, 28 and 68, in which we return to the issue of the single assessment process.
We had an extensive debate about the importance of the single assessment process in Committee. I thank the Minister for the full written reply he sent to me outlining precisely the ways in which my previous amendment on the subject was unnecessary and defective. Nevertheless, I return to the issue of the single assessment process.
It is clear to anyone engaged in the help and social care of older people that the single assessment process which is being introduced will become a fundamental part of determining the care needs of older people. It is inescapable that the failure of the legislation to trigger that comprehensive assessment creates a large gap, particularly when much of what we have been discussing and other matters depend upon the single assessment process.
I remind the noble Lord that the single assessment process does not have a basis in law; it is not based in primary legislation. The constrictions in the Bill, under which market forces are being brought to bear on judgments between health and social care, will make a distinct difference to the character of the way in which decisions are made.
This group of amendments includes the issue of the responsibilities of housing authorities, a matter we have debated before. My noble friend Lady Maddock will cover the issue in greater detail.
In its response to me last week in regard to the single assessment process, the department pointed out that part of my amendment was unnecessary where continuing nursing care needs were met in a person's own home. Unless NHS-funded services are to provide social care as well—and increasingly they do not—it is important that we should reconsider the way in which the single assessment process will sit alongside that.
We are all in agreement that the single assessment process is good; some agree that it will be better when older people are actively involved in its design and implementation. It is at the crux of getting not only the right care but the best quality care for older people and it should be on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 26 and 29. Amendment No. 26 seeks to insert a new subsection after Clause 3(7) and requires the local authority to consider whether any other NHS body—that is, a body other than the trust

1165
concerned—should consider providing services to the patient after discharge. It also requires the local authority to provide information for that purpose.
It is a straightforward amendment. It seeks to ensure that other NHS bodies are brought into the loop. When we debated a similar amendment in Committee—which, on that occasion, required the NHS trust to consider whether other NHS bodies should be involved and provide information—the Minister said that it was unnecessary because Clause 3(8) made that implicit.
Amendment No. 26 takes a slightly different tack and seeks to place the responsibility for involving other NHS bodies on the local authority. That assumes that what the Minister told us on the previous occasion about the implicit requirement for NHS bodies to involve each other under Clause 3(8) is a valid statement.
The most important point is that the full range of post-discharge services is considered. Local authorities are particularly concerned about patients being discharged to their homes without the necessary NHS services being put in place. Without those services it is possible that the discharge home and the support provided by social services would be rendered non-viable. The amendment seeks to ensure that all post-discharge services are brought together. In that way, it is to be hoped, nothing will be forgotten. I hope that the Minister will welcome the amendment.
Amendment No. 29 is different. It seeks to amend Clause 3(8) to require the NHS bodies that are considering providing post-discharge services to agree those services with the local authority. If the Government's Amendment No. 27 is agreed to subsection (8) will disappear, but the substance of Amendment No. 29 will remain valid in relation to subsection (2) of the new clause contained in the Government's Amendment No. 34, to which we shall come later.
In Committee, the Minister revealed the anti-local authority sentiment that runs through the Bill. She said that requiring agreement would provide a loophole that could be exploited by local authorities in order to avoid fines. She seemed not to understand that, viewed from the local authority end of the telescope, Clause 3(8), which allows the NHS to assert its own will over local authorities, looks like a loophole to be exploited by an NHS eager to collect money from fines.
If I may say so, the Minister seemed not to understand that partnership working, which the Government claim to support, positively requires agreement about important matters such as post-discharge services.
Amendment No. 29 is important because partnership working is the only real solution to minimising delayed discharges. The solution is not fines; it is not notices and all the elaborate
1166
paraphernalia in this dreadful Bill. At all costs, we have to preserve in the Bill as many aspects as possible of partnership working.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 13. Earlier, the Minister said that the Bill was about health and social services working together. I wish to add home improvement services to the list.
The amendments have two purposes. First, to highlight the connection between poor health and poor housing; and, secondly, to enable the Minister to reassure me today that the issue of home improvements will be regarded as important in drawing up the regulations and the best practice guidance that will follow.
I make no apology for raising this issue yet again. Thirty years ago, I went to live in Sweden. I was very impressed by the standard of health of elderly people there. It was fairly obvious that it resulted from the fact that they lived in decent homes—homes which were warm, not cold and damp as they are in this country. Here I am, 30 years later, in Britain—one of the richest nations in the world—and, still, one in 14 of our population live in homes that are unfit for human habitation.
I shall not repeat all the statistics that I gave in Committee. I merely highlight two of them: the tendency to live in poor housing conditions increases with age, particularly after 80, and lone older women are more likely to live in unfit housing; and 1.7 million people need adaptations in their homes. There are all kinds of reasons for those facts, including poverty, frailty and disability. The one that concerns us in debating this Bill is the lack of information about the help that is available and how to obtain it.
Those assessing patients for discharge from hospital are in an ideal position to ascertain the problems of home disrepair—whether it be the lack of adaptations, general disrepair or a lack of suitable heating. They have the ability to ensure that patients are referred to the appropriate agencies. They might be referred to the warm front scheme if it is a question of heating. I am particularly disappointed that the Government are cutting the budget for the scheme this year—they are cutting the DEFRA budget. It might be a question of other heating schemes through the energy efficiency commitment that the Government have imposed on the utilities; or it might be a question of Care & Repair schemes.
There is one area about which I feel particularly incensed; namely, the inability of our services to enable older people to have a level-access shower in their homes. I draw attention to the Adjournment debate in another place on 27th January in which Helen Jackson, Member of Parliament for Sheffield, Hillsborough, spoke about this issue. She gave the frightening example of one of her constituents who had been turned down for a disabled facilities grant by his assessor because he was able to have a strip wash and was not incontinent. My mother was discharged

1167
from hospital following a knee operation. She did not have a shower. She was not able even to strip-wash herself because of various things that were happening.
I find it amazing that people still have to wait for up to a year for this type of adaptation when we know how much it costs to keep people in hospital. The cost of a shower pales into insignificance. Will the Minister assure me that this matter is being pursued vigorously by the health service in conjunction with other agencies?
In some areas home condition is taken very seriously when examining programmes where social services and health services are working together. I can recommend a particularly good scheme that was brought to my attention by the LGA in south Shropshire. Perhaps I may recommend to the Minister the work of the Care & Repair scheme in this field. It has put together good examples of best practice and guidelines to enable good discharge services, which include home improvement agencies. I hope that the Minister's department will draw on those.
When I raised this issue at an earlier stage, the Minister agreed that it was important. Will he reassure me that the health service is working to ensure that, when a patient comes into contact with the health service, that person will as a matter of course, every time, be asked about their home circumstances in order that they might be referred to the appropriate agencies as soon as possible? There are examples of good schemes up and down the country.
In this country we are taking far too long to recognise the role of poor housing in the ever-rising cost of healthcare. By recognising fully in this Bill the implications of poor housing, we can take the issue forward and help to tackle the very large backlog. It is not rocket science and it does not cost money. In the 21st century, we jolly well ought to be doing it.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: I strongly agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I have heard her speak on this matter on other occasions, and I have been involved with some of the home repair agencies over the years.
A house has a life. At the stage when one elderly person is living there—usually an elderly woman living in a building that is in poor repair—a small amount of money will keep that home going for the few remaining years of the person's life. After his or her death, a young family will come into the house, invest in it and make more major repairs. In that way, it gets a new lease of life. So for a very small outlay of money one can help to keep people much healthier than is imagined for that small investment. When we talk about collaboration between health and social services, we usually forget how important housing is in making that happen.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in favour of Amendment No. 28, which in many ways harks back to the previous group of amendments on
1168
the issue of continuing care. If a patient in hospital is assessed as needing nursing care in a care home when he leaves the hospital, it is unacceptable for that decision to be taken without its implications being fully spelt out to him. The main question that will occur to anyone in that situation is "How much is the after-care likely to cost me?"
The Government made a great fanfare about introducing free nursing care in care homes. As we now know, the reality is a little different. NHS nursing care in care homes is not always completely free. You have to find out what band you fall into before you can calculate how much it will cost to be looked after in a particular home. There is no current guidance about this. The previous guidance laid down that social services ought to,
"provide written details of the likely cost to the patient of any options which he or she is asked to consider … and that hospital and social services staff should ensure that patients receive written details of any continuing care that is arranged for them. This should include a statement of which aspects of care will be arranged and funded by the NHS".
As I remarked in Committee, doing this for a patient is a matter of basic human courtesy, but the evidence is that in many, many cases it does not happen. The situation is compounded by the opaqueness of the rules surrounding the £110 band of nursing care compared to the criteria for fully funded NHS healthcare. Deciding who qualifies for one as opposed to the other requires a degree of insight denied to most mortal men. It baffled the health ombudsman and I think we can safely say that it would baffle most of us.
This really has to be sorted out before the Bill comes into effect. I am delighted that the Government have recognised in an explicit way the importance of consulting the patient, but I ask the Minister: how is it possible to consult the patient about his aftercare in the truest sense of the word "consultation" if you cannot, in so doing, tell him the basis on which he will need looking after and who will be responsible for doing what? That is the issue in Amendment No. 28. I hope that the Minister will feel able to respond sympathetically.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, in regard to the importance of home improvements. We have heard about home improvements in terms of whether someone is eligible. A further point is that they must be timely—they need to happen early, not late. There are many patients who have neurological diseases which are slowly progressing. If those patients are to be returned home and are to benefit from home improvements, the improvements must happen quickly; otherwise, the tragic situation arises—as we have heard in meetings with groups outside this Chamber, particularly from those with motor neurone disease—that by the time the patient has the home improvements done, his or her condition has deteriorated so much that he or she cannot benefit fully from them. Home improvements always lag behind the clinical condition. The costs of care then escalate enormously. The care services are never freed up from providing care because the improvement is

1169
not in place that would have relieved the burden on them and would have maintained people's independence for weeks, months or, one hopes, even years longer.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we have had a series of interesting and important discussions on this group of amendments.
On Amendment No. 12, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was quite right that we have high expectations of the single assessment process. It is an extremely important step forward. Particularly important is that it puts patients at the heart of the assessment process. It is very explicit in taking account of their needs and wishes. I take her point about involving them in the design and implementation of the guidance. It is not yet fully operational but I hope that as it evolves there will he opportunities to do just that—it makes perfect sense. The guidance brings together the health and social care professionals. It was issued as Section 7 guidance, which means that it must be acted upon.
In relation to the amendment, I am glad to say that the process already extends to hospital settings. It will be the means whereby assessment of all care needs over and above clinician diagnosis and discharge planning is undertaken in hospital settings for older people. We know that good work is being done on rolling out the process.
The noble Baroness made a plea that we put the amendment on the face of the Bill to act as a trigger. We have already put the local authority's duty to carry out a Section 47 assessment on the face of the Bill in Clause 3. All assessments under Section 47 will be made by way of the SAP. Having that in the Bill makes it clear that everything will be a Section 47 assessment, which is linked to the SAP. I understand why the noble Baroness makes such a strong case for this proposal, but it is not necessary because the provision is so clear in the Bill.
When my noble friend Lord Hunt wrote last week to the noble Baroness with details of how the Department of Health emphasises to the field the importance of adherence to the SAP, he spelt it out in some detail. Because of its importance, it comes under Section 7 guidance, and any attempt to avoid compliance would be quickly picked up by the strategic health authorities and the social security inspectorate.
We are encouraged by the fact that our scrutiny so far suggests that the field has taken the SAP to heart and is dealing seriously with it. That suggests that it is going with the grain of the very best practice and that people are happy to put it into effect. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with me that it is not necessary to list the responsibilities again here. However, it will be made clear in the official guidance accompanying the Bill that the SAP is the fundamental means of assessment and that it must be followed.
Let me turn to the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock, Lady Greengross and Lady Finlay. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, made a powerful speech about the need to link home improvement services to the discharge process. Nothing divides us
1170
on the importance of this. The examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, were as powerful as the ones she gave in Committee. At that stage, I said that we would be looking at how we could reinforce the guidance to make it certain that social services authorities would identify housing needs, informing their housing counterparts and working together to ensure that what could be done was clone. Under the Bill, social services are required to consult where there is a housing need. The responsible authority, as defined in the Bill, will not always be the housing authority, so we have to make provision for that communication to take place. I should like to reinforce what I said in Committee and to give the noble Baroness the assurance that she seeks.
We have responded to the need in a very specific way. We have put in new resources. We are aware of the difficulty of putting the disabled facilities grant in place in some local authorities. There is no question but that there are delays. However, we have put new plans in place. On 23rd July 2002, the Secretary of State said that part of the package financed through additional funding for social services would be a 50 per cent increase over the 1997 total in the number of extra-care housing places—very sheltered accommodation. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, spoke about home improvement agencies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to the cost-effectiveness of installing a walk-in shower. A walk-in shower costs about £5,000 so that would come under the DFG. Some of the other very small adaptations, which are extremely cheap and make all the difference in the world, come under the CSDP Act. We want to see the point of connection being made between the social services and housing authorities when they are looking at the sort of conditions that elderly people will go back to when they are discharged.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, what concerns me is that there are all sorts of services to which people can be referred. The Government say that they will talk to housing authorities, and so on, but it is becoming second nature to know where to refer people. It is not always to the local authority—other agencies are doing it.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the assessment process is designed not to make a virtue out of referral but to make something happen. It brings people together. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that this is a point at which information can be usefully exchanged. It may in fact be the first time that some of these people have talked to each other. We expect something to happen arising from that.
Following the Secretary of State's announcement on 23rd July regarding older people's services, we will in due course be announcing details of a special grant to local councils to expand community-based social care services. That will include a specific ring-fenced investment of £9.5 million over the next three years in HIAs to contribute to reductions in delayed discharge by the prompt supply of minor housing works. So

1171
direct action is being taken. Similar funding is also being made available by the ODPM. I should prefer to write to the noble Baroness about that and about the recent joint work between the ODPM and the Department of Health about the guidance. I will circulate that.
In practical terms, we know that very few discharges are delayed entirely for housing reasons, but obviously they have a direct influence on many situations. I hope, given that assurance, that the noble Baroness will accept that we have entirely taken her point.
Amendment No. 17 would remove the words "if any" from Clause 3(3)(b). The words are there because the clause requires the local authority to consult the NHS and then decide what services it will provide. There may be circumstances in which no services are necessary, perhaps because the patient has made a complete recovery. We must make it possible for the local authority not to provide services. Therefore, the insertion of "if any" provides clarity on the face of the Bill that it is valid for the local authority to provide no services. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Amendment No. 18 would insert the words,
"whether acting as purchaser or provider".
I presume that that is intended to clarify what is meant by the local authority deciding whether to make services available. We do not think that that adds much value to the clause because the term "make available" simply indicates that the social services are ready to comply and that the services are ready and available. There may be reasons why the services are not provided on the day of discharge—for example, the housing provision may not have been made—and the patient cannot be discharged, but we believe that "made available" encompasses preparation and availability.
Amendment No. 19 would add:
"commensurate with the patient's needs".
Assessments carried out by the NHS or local authorities are not simply an academic exercise. The point is that the patient's health or social care needs should be met. As public bodies, local authorities are under a public law duty to do that, but there is a clear statement in the single assessment process that this is a system of care management that covers assessment, planning and service delivery. That package of care will test and secure good working relationships between all the health and social care professionals involved. The Bill reinforces that by requiring the local authority to consult the NHS when it is planning the patient's care package. It means mutual information and a commitment to making sure that the patient's needs are met. We have backed that up with a wide range of extra resources for the NHS and social services in relation to discharge.
We have tabled Amendment No. 24 to make the Bill fairer to local authorities and clearer and more sensitive to individual circumstances. I hope that it mitigates to some extent what the noble Lord said about our unfairness to social services. We already
1172
have the power in regulations to begin the assessment process again if the situation changes so markedly that what the NHS or social services planned to provide is no longer enough. That has gone into our new clause. The amendment covers a situation in which, during an extended hospital stay, the patient's condition improves beyond expectation, or perhaps their personal circumstances change so that they will find a relative in support when they go home. In those circumstances, a completely new assessment is probably not necessary, but the patient does not need all the services that social services had planned to provide. For example, a patient who has had a stroke and has a poor prognosis in the early days may make a rapid recovery and may not need physiotherapy that had been planned. The amendment allows social services, after consultation with the NHS, to change their decision about what services to provide to enable a safe discharge. It builds in flexibility and sensitivity to changing needs. Given the proviso that the local authority will not be able to make such a change without consulting the NHS body, I hope that noble Lords will accept that.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 29 are intended to cover the provision of services by other NHS bodies, such as primary care trusts, and to require that the relevant bodies agree with each other. I am afraid that we still feel that the amendments do not add anything to what is already in the Bill. They would require the NHS body to consider whether any other NHS body should provide services. The NHS body already needs to consider whether the trust or another NHS body has to provide services to the patient on discharge. Clause 3(8) states that the responsible NHS body, and any other NHS body that will he involved in providing health services, will need to consult the local authority. That will primarily be the primary care trust. The noble Baroness is right that the full range of services considered necessary should be available. The PCT will be providing those services and ensuring that, whether it is physiotherapy, speech therapy or dressings to be changed, the nursing support is there, the health visitors are organised and the physiotherapists are available. That depends on the PCT knowing what its task is and having liaised with the NHS. Following on from the acute trust's decision that the patient will need community health services, they will have to provide appropriate information to the other NHS bodies—otherwise nothing will happen—so that they can comply with their duties under subsection (3). I repeat that we do not think that anything needs to be added to the Bill, as this will happen as a matter of course and of logic.
Amendment No. 29 then states that the responsible NHS body must come to an agreement with the social services authority. I am sorry if I gave the impression of being anti-social services. I am certainly not and I did not intend to give that impression. The noble Baroness is right that agreement is essential before anything can be achieved. Our problem is that to include a duty on the face of the Bill in the way that she wants would, in the worst circumstances, offer a reason for failing to act or to come to an agreement.

1173
In that case the loss would be borne by the individual patient. We think it is right to try to protect them from that. It is a worst case analysis, but we have a duty to make sure that it does not happen. Subsection (8) as drafted is simpler and better.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke to Amendment No. 28. If he will forgive me, I shall not reopen the debate that we have already had this afternoon on NHS nursing care. We have difficulty with the amendment because we do not want to identify or single out in the Bill particular services that we think the NHS should be considering To address the noble Earl's basic point, existing guidance is clear on NHS-funded nursing care. Anyone who is assessed as needing care in a care home providing nursing care will have a registered nursing care contribution carried out. Patients will be told the level of need and funding that the NHS will be paying on their behalf in the care home, regardless of the setting that a person is in—a hospital or wherever. The discharge good practice workbook will also make it clear that there will be a potential need for nursing care after a period of hospitalisation.
I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:
Page 3, line 4, after "consulting" insert "the patient and having obtained the informed consent of the patient or, in the case where a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent to the proposed care plan, having recorded on the file what steps have been taken to ensure that the patients best interests have been duly considered, and after consulting"
Page 3, line 4, after "body" insert "and the qualifying patient"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) Before making a decision under subsection (3), the responsible authority must—

(a) consult the patient and his carer, if he has one;

(b) inform them of the cost of the proposed care plans; and

(c) obtain the consent of the patient and any carer and, where informed consent is given, record that on the patient's file, or if a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent, record on the file what steps it has taken to ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 8, leave out from "person" to end of line 9 and insert "who is a carer in respect of"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 15, after "consulting" insert "the carer and obtaining the informed consent of the carer to the proposed care plan and after consulting"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 23A to 25:
Page 3, line 17, leave out from "carer" to end of line 19.
page 3, line 28, at end insert—
"(6A) The responsible authority must keep under review—

(a) the needs of the patient; and

(b) the needs of any carer whose needs it has assessed under subsection (4)(a),

so far as affecting the services that need to be made available in order for it to be safe to discharge him.
(6B) The responsible authority may, after consulting the responsible NHS body, alter—

(a) its decision under subsection (3)(b); or

(b) any decision taken by it under subsection (4)(b),

to take account of any change in circumstances since the assessment carried out under subsection (3)(a) or (4)(a) (as the case may be).
(6C) The responsible authority must inform the responsible NHS body of the decision under subsection (3)(a), of any decision under subsection (4)(a) and of any alteration made under subsection (6B)."
Page 3, line 29, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Dean of Harptree): My Lords, I advise the House that if Amendment No. 27 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 28 to 31.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 33, leave out subsections (8) to (10).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) The responsible NHS body must give the patient and his carer, if he has one—

(a) notice of the day on which it proposes to discharge the patient, and where informed consent is given, record that on the patient's file, or if a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent, record on the file what steps it has taken to ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered, and

(b) information about their right to request a review if they disagree with the decision to discharge."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE NHS BODY FOLLOWING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 2
(1) The duties under this section apply where notice of a patient's case under section 2 has been given.
(2) The responsible NHS body, and any other NHS body which is considering whether to provide services to the patient after discharge, must consult the responsible authority before deciding what services (if any) it will make available to him in order for it to be safe to discharge the patient.
(3) The responsible NHS body must give the responsible authority notice of the day on which it proposes to discharge the patient.
(4) The notice under subsection (3) remains in force until the end of the relevant day, unless it has previously been withdrawn.
(5) The responsible NHS body may withdraw the notice under subsection (3) at any time before the end of the relevant day by giving notice of withdrawal to the responsible authority.
(6) For the purposes of this Part "the relevant day", in relation to a qualifying hospital patient, is the later of—

(a) the day specified in the notice under subsection (3); and

(b) the last day of the prescribed minimum interval after the notice under section 2 was given.

(7) Regulations may prescribe a period as the minimum interval after a notice under section 2 is given; but that period must—

(a) begin with the day after that on which the notice under section 2 is given; and

(b) be a period of at least two days.

(8) If the notice under subsection (3) is withdrawn before the end of the relevant day—

(a) the duty under subsection (3) applies again; and

(b) when a new notice under subsection (3) is given, subsection (6) applies again for the purpose of identifying a new "relevant day".

(9) Regulations may provide for—

(a) the time at which notices under subsection (3) are to be given;

(b) the form and content of—

(i) notices under subsection (3); and

(ii) withdrawal notices under subsection (4); and the manner in which such notices are to be given;

(c) circumstances in which notices under subsection (3) must be withdrawn; and

(d) determining the day on which a notice under subsection (3) or a notice of withdrawal under subsection (5) is given (including provision prescribing circumstances in which a notice under subsection (3) is to be treated for any specified purpose as having been given on a day other than that on which it was in fact given)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the key amendment in this group of government amendments is Amendment No. 34, which draws together a new clause about the duties of the responsible NHS body. This Bill places duties on the NHS as well as social services, so it is helpful to have a clause that brings this together, out of the previous Clauses 3 and 4. It makes it easier to read the Bill and see what NHS partners have to do.
The new clause mostly repeats what was formerly in other clauses, but also makes some minor changes to clarify procedures around the notice of discharge date, adding a regulation-making power to specify when such a notice must be withdrawn, and the manner in which such withdrawals should be made. Amendment No. 36 is consequential on this amendment.
Amendment No. 35 tightens the test for liability for payment in Clause 4 by clarifying that both notifications under Sections 2 and 3 must have been made and not withdrawn in order for the local authority to be liable for any payment. Again this ensures that the steps that underpin joint planning have taken place before there is any possibility of a charge. It will avoid the circumstances that sometimes occur, whereby the first a social services department hears of a patient is when it is informed that this is a delayed discharge for which it may be responsible.
Amendment No. 42 is to take account of the effect of Amendment No. 24, through which we empowered the local authority to change its decision under Clause 3(3)(b) or Clause 3(4)(b), in the light of a change in the patient's circumstances. If there is a change to either or both of the care packages needed by the patient or his or her carer, to facilitate a safe discharge, it is these services which the local authority must have in place in order to fulfil its duties.
Amendment No. 43 removes a subsection that is now covered with more clarity in the new clauses covering Section 2 and 3 notices.
The major effect of Amendment No. 48 is to circumscribe the power in Clause 4(4) to make regulations setting the amount of the payment. This is in response to the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which said:
"We accept that it is common for Bills to leave amounts of payments to be prescribed by regulations. However, neither the amount which may be fixed under clause 4, nor the method by which it may be calculated, are limited on the face of the Bill. We do not consider that the position is appropriate in a provision which is central to Part 1 of the Bill. The Committee considers that the delegation in clause 4 would be appropriate if the Bill described at least the main factors by reference to which the amount must be assessed".
That is what we have done in the amendment.
As the consultation paper on this policy stated:
"It is clearly important that the level at which the reimbursement should be set is neither too high nor too low. Too high a payment would be unfair on social services departments … too low a payment would not provide enough of an incentive".
Therefore, the level of the charge is based on the cost of providing accommodation and personal care in a hospital, and is calculated from the average daily cost of treating patients in a nursing-led facility with the costs of medical input from doctors or specialist nurses, overheads and capital removed to reflect the lower costs of care once a patient is ready for discharge. The amendment also makes the drafting clearer by putting this with other provisions about payment into a separate clause, and Amendment No. 44 is consequential on that.
Amendment No. 60 puts the definition of "the relevant day" into the interpretation clause, since this is now mentioned in more than one place in the Bill. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this is a rather disparate group of amendments, and we should perhaps have been more aggressive in degrouping them. I wish to speak to a rather heterogeneous group of amendmets: Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 41, 45 and 47.
In Committee, we had a reasonably extensive debate on the issue of notice periods and relevant periods. The Minister responded to some extent to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. However, I am returning to the subject because the Minister was somewhat tentative in phrasing his response. I am not sure that he fully took on hoard the concerns expressed widely, in local government and by voluntary organisations, about the problems associated with treating weekends and public holidays as part of the relevant period. The Minister made it clear that they are not excluded.
The difficulty and cost of providing care services during weekends will be considerable. I do not believe that the Minister and his colleagues have taken that on hoard properly. Arrangements for simple things such as obtaining medicine in rural areas at weekends will be difficult. We in London take it for granted that pharmacies are open at weekends, but that is by no means the case in rural areas.
Research increasingly shows that discharges on a Friday, just before the weekend, are unsound. The Minister may be familiar with research carried out in a Leicester teaching hospital over a period of three years, which showed that the relative risk of readmission for individuals discharged on Friday was three times higher compared with the mean for other weekdays. That kind of research should make the Government sit up and take notice.
In Committee, the Minister made great play of the fact that three days was the absolute minimum for the period. He went on to say:
"I shall consider … whether there is a case for changing the period in the regulations … to cover some of the points made about weekends and bank holidays".—[Official Report, 18/2/03; col. 1046.]
We want to see whether the Minister will translate that proposal into something a great deal firmer. He was at great pains to add that it was not an undertaking. I hope that we can extract an undertaking from him either now on Report or at Third Reading. Today may not be the right hour, but we would certainly pursue that as a very important aspect of this legislation.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 38 and 47. The timing of the start of the period is a crucial aspect of this legislation. I tabled these two amendments to probe what should happen if there is a dispute about discharge or the appropriateness of community care services. It is extremely important for social services that the patient is protected in those circumstances and
1178
that the clock does not start ticking until those issues have been resolved. The Minister may be interested in the mechanism adopted for an independent panel to adjudicate on the matter in the amendment. However, that is not the central purpose of the amendment.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 41 and 45. As the Opposition Benches have maintained throughout Committee and Report stages, the legislation as currently drafted is one-sided in placing all the burdens and liabilities for delayed discharge on social services departments. The effect is to make delays the sole responsibility of local authorities. The assumption underlying the proposal is that most delays in the system are the fault of social services, whereas in reality the causes of delay are complex and multifactorial. It is far from clear that the issue can be resolved by a one-sided charging system. For example, in some areas, appropriate hospital discharges are still being delayed because of the timing of consultant ward rounds. A one-sided system that penalises one part of the care sector to reimburse another could threaten or diminish partnership working. Indeed, we believe that it almost certainly will threaten and diminish partnership working. It is doubtful that health and social care budgets can work effectively and harmoniously together if the money is simply redistributed away from local authority social services.
The legislation also fails to establish a clear line of fault-based liability or provide for variation of the delayed discharge period. In Delivering the NHS Plan, it is clear that some parity between reimbursement mechanisms in health and social services was originally envisaged. Indeed, the plan states that:
"There will be matching charges on NHS hospitals to make them responsible for the costs of emergency hospital readmissions, so as to ensure patients are not discharged prematurely".
Unfortunately, it has not been possible to table an amendment that falls within the Long Title of the Bill, simultaneously to introduce cross-charging arrangements for delays attributable to failure to provide timely community nursing services and for premature discharges resulting in emergency readmission.
These more limited amendments therefore seek to alter the emphasis of the legislation from a punitive "fining" regime against local authorities into a genuine partnership approach between the NHS and local government based on the whole systems approach. We on these Benches seek safeguards to ensure that expenditure can be recovered where social services departments are wrongly charged and that there is compulsory remission of the charges up to 100 per cent where it has not been possible to discharge the patient because the responsible NHS body has been unable to make available a relevant health and community care service as agreed in the aftercare plan. The social services department in those circumstances should have a right to recover money from an acute trust which has wrongly charged them for a patient who is not their responsibility.
It appears to be the intention that social services will pay the acute trust for any delay due to lack of social services. The legislation needs to engage the whole system and prevent the opportunities for gaming that

1179
the proposed legislation may create. If there is to be any health gain from this charging system, it will be achieved by directing the charges to preventive healthcare. That means the primary care trusts.
There should also be a clear audit trail to show how the money generated is allocated and used. The money arising from the fines may well be lost in the system and therefore undermine the services and needs of older people which should remain at the heart of this legislation. The key elements of the approach in the above amendments are that any money paid by an authority as a fine for delayed discharge should go into a jointly held fund and that the money from that fund should be spent only to provide health and community care for patients being discharged from hospital. We want to ensure that money paid from social services does not leak from the system and away from community care.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 38A which is in my name. I apologise to noble Lords for returning to the health service ombudsman's ruling on continuing care. However, I shall approach it from a different perspective and try to avoid repeating earlier comments. First, however, I declare an interest as a leader of a local authority and as vice president of the LGA.
The four cases considered by the ombudsman involved individuals who had made contributions for their continuing care, which was essential to enable them to be discharged. They should have been the responsibility of the health service. While it was right for the ombudsman to consider first the cases involving individuals who had made personal contributions to their care, those personal contributions were dependent on the fact that they had savings of more than £16,000. We cannot expect that the forthcoming review will not find cases where individuals have savings of less than £16,000 and responsibility for paying continuing care costs lies with the local authority rather than the individual concerned. As we assume that this misinterpretation and misapplication of the guidance has, as the ombudsman's report states, affected all individuals, there are bound to be cases where health authorities should reimburse local authorities.
The ombudsman suggested a review, and the Minister has said that an appropriate review is taking place. I am sure that we will find cases where health authorities should pay money back to local authorities because of previous mistakes. The Bill provides for payments by local authorities for the problems it has caused the health authorities. However, I think it would be equitable if, before we embarked on new issues, we could resolve the continuing care problems. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will listen carefully and respond on those points.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to Amendment No. 39. Amendment No. 37, which proposes that weekends and public holidays should be discounted in relation to the defined period of notice
1180
for the discharge of a patient, closely reflects my own Amendment No. 39—although, in all honesty, I do not think that Amendment No. 39 sits quite so easily in the clause as does my own amendment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has put the case extremely well. I propose to do nothing except underline everything that he said, not least the strength of feeling in local government circles on this issue.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I shall speak briefly on Amendment No. 35 and touch on Amendments Nos. 37 to 39. In Committee, I was heartened to hear the Minister say that this Bill will be as tough and rigorous on the NHS as it is on social services departments. In Committee, I suggested that one way of achieving that may be to make the terms of the newly updated NHS workbook on hospital discharge subject to a direction from the Secretary of State and to delay the Bill's implementation until the Department of Health is reassured that that is indeed the case. More still can be done, especially given the recent findings which we have discussed today of the health ombudsman's regarding the NHS's responsibilities to fund continuing care. However, this new clause seems very good news.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 37 to 39, which were tabled by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches. As we heard, this group of amendments relates to the timing of a Section 2 notice. I am sympathetic to the arguments, which are those of the organisations rather than the older people themselves, that the period should not include weekends and bank holidays. But the truth is that if the procedures are good it should allow enough time in all but a few very complicated cases; for instance, when no suitable care home place can be found locally or where the person's home needs substantial alteration.
Therefore, I think it is right that social services departments should work to meet the deadlines imposed by the Bill as that will benefit older people who do not want to be left in acute hospitals for any longer than necessary. That is what the Bill is about, not the convenience of organisations, although I accept we must ensure that we do not place unworkable obligations on them.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, rightly pointed out that the moment a person enters hospital, plans should be put in place for his or her eventual discharge. It should be obvious then which cases are likely to be complex and need social services department involvement. Listening to the arguments on that point, I wonder whether a compromise might be to require the NHS body to give some kind of pre-notification notice—that sounds dreadful!—say, at five days, that it is minded to issue a Section 2 notice in three days' time. In most cases that would not be necessary as the various agencies should already be co-operating with one another, but it might be an extra safeguard to avoid early, unexpected or inappropriate discharge. I believe that the average stay in hospital is 11 days, which would give time for the process to be gone through and would ensure that social services departments are never surprised by a complicated

1181
discharge case. It would also allow time to take account of bank holidays and weekends, as Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39 suggest.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for the government amendments. She is right to suggest that the reordering of the clauses makes the position much clearer in terms of NHS responsibility. I have sought to reassure noble Lords that that responsibility is in my view as stringent as that of local government. I refer to the noble Baroness's suggestion in the context of good practice. It will be up to local bodies—NHS bodies and local government bodies—to work through the Bill's statutory provisions in practice.
I certainly accept that the whole question of weekends and bank holidays is important. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we need to remember that the test for the discharge date is that it will be safe for the patient to be discharged on that day. Currently, the medical part of that decision is unlikely to be made at the weekend, but it is an important point as regards the discussion of which days count. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
Amendment No. 39, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, seeks to lengthen the amount of time that local authorities have to assess and make services available to patients. Although it sounds reasonable, we have to take into account what that means in practice. In practice it would mean that when a weekend falls within that period, the minimum compliance period would be five days and, in the event of public holidays which fall next to weekends, the minimum period could extend to six or even seven days. I have real concerns about stating on the face of the Bill that it is acceptable for local authorities to take a minimum of seven days to assess a patient and make services available for that patient. The minimum compliance period on the face of the Bill is a minimum, but there is a risk that the minimum will become the norm. I am concerned that the noble Earl's amendment could in some cases result in worse practice than is currently available in some parts of the country.
I stress that the minimum compliance period on the face of the Bill is a minimum. We have taken powers in the regulations that allow us to specify the minimum period. I shall discuss those later. The number of days on the face of the Bill should be the number we expect all local authorities eventually to achieve for all patients and as soon as possible for the majority of patients.
Of course, working practices in both the NHS and social services will have to change to achieve that. But they ought to do so. That is the whole point. I refer to the poor performance of so many statutory agencies in parts of the country. Working practices must change. The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide the right incentives to ensure that that will happen. I understand the points that were made about bank holidays in particular and, to a certain extent, also weekends. In
1182
Committee, I said that the Government were considering those points. We have not yet reached a conclusion. I shall take into account the further points made today. I have no doubt that we shall discuss the matter again at Third Reading.
I hope that noble Lords will accept that, although I am still prepared to consider the issues concerning bank holidays and weekends, I shall not give a commitment tonight. I am certainly wary of putting anything on the face of the Bill to suggest that we are moving away from the minimum compliance period. We are aware that the aim of the Bill may pose real challenges for statutory organisations. However, delaying individuals' discharge from hospital inappropriately can have a very negative effect on their future lives. Therefore, we need to be careful that we do not allow statutory agencies to make excuse after excuse after excuse and to walk away from what the Bill is intended to achieve.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 38 and 47, which appear to want to introduce a complaints procedure for both NHS and social services which must be completed before the patient is discharged. I wish to repeat a point I have already made; namely, that the Bill does not affect the right of an individual to make a complaint to the NHS or social services about the care he or she has received. We shall make it clear in guidance that any complaints by patients about the NHS decision on whether or not they are eligible for fully funded continuing NHS healthcare should be dealt with promptly before any dispute under this part of the Bill commences. We have already discussed the steps we shall take to ensure that those decisions are made promptly and at the correct stage in the discharge process. If such a complaint arises after the Section 2 notice has been given—the steps we are taking, and the step I announced in a previous debate will mean that that should be the exception rather than the rule—the social services authority will at that point effectively assess the patient as not needing any community care services from it because he or she needs continuing services from the NHS instead. That means that the delayed discharge clock will not start and the patient will remain in hospital until the dispute about eligibility for continuing NHS care has been resolved.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. They are intended to provide local authorities with an incentive to fulfil the responsibilities they already have. The language in the Bill is clear and unambiguous in describing the circumstances in which the local authority will be required to make a payment. Subsection (4)(b) of Clause 4 states that if by the end of the relevant day,
"it has not been possible to discharge the patient because, and only because",
the responsible authority,
"has not made available for the patient a community care service which it decided under section 3(3)(b) to make available for him",
the responsible authority must make a payment of the amount prescribed in regulations for each day of the delayed discharge period. That is, local authorities will become liable for a reimbursement payment only

1183
where the delay is solely their responsibility. I believe that we have in the Bill a clause that is a great deal simpler and leaves less room for dispute than the suggested amendment. It is unambiguous that the local authority either makes a payment or it does not.
I turn to Amendment No. 45, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which seeks to add to the money flows around reimbursement; it deals with where reimbursement payments should go and how the money should be spent. As I said in Committee, this amendment misses the whole point of the Bill. The point is to provide a financial incentive for social services to invest in community care services that are needed to prevent delayed discharge in the first place. It is not to establish a fund to spend on community service. It detracts from the very sharpness and clarity of relationships and responsibilities that the Bill will provide. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to fudge the situation by creating a cosy community fund so that the money goes round and round but no individual statutory body will feel responsible for implementing the provisions effectively. In their own right, local authorities, acute trusts and primary care trusts could set up agreements and decide how to spend any resource. However, that would be for local decision and it is a far cry from the clarity that we wish to see in the provision.
I turn to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Smith. He has enormous experience in this regard. I know that this involves a case in his own area but there is no doubt that overall his own authority and the health service in his area have done much good work in relation to delayed discharges. However, his amendment has already been covered by some of our discussion. First, I made it clear that in the case of continuing care, we will be directing the NHS to carry out a continuing care assessment prior to the issue of the Section 2 notice. That means that any dispute in this regard would already have been resolved. I have already spoken in detail to that point earlier.
In the case of the registered nursing care contribution, that would unnecessarily restrict the process and the incentives for the local authority to act quickly and—this is my real concern—could encourage local authorities to dispute every decision to avoid charges. That is why it is much better that any charges should be incurred and adjustments made retrospectively, following the outcome of the relevant reviews and appeals. The emphasis in the Bill must be on getting on with it and on sorting out what the individual patient requires and ensuring that that patient receives it. The issue may fall to dispute resolution but the key point is to ensure that the patient comes first.
That concludes my comments on the amendments. I believe that while I accept that legitimate points have been raised, we should resist the temptation to move away from the clarity in the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Liability to make delayed discharge payments]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 4, line 12, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"( 1) This section applies where notice of a patient's case under section 2 and notice of the proposed discharge day under section (Duties of responsible NHS body after notice under section 2)(3) have both been given (and are in force)."
Page 4, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, because Amendment No. 36 has been agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 or 47.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 44:
Page 5, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) The references in subsections (5) and (7) to services "decided under" section 3(3)(b) or (4)(b) are, in a case where the decision in question has been altered under section 3(6C), to any services specified in the altered decision."
Page 5, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).
Page 5, line 24, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Children
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Walmsleyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they will respond to the report on the United Kingdom's treatment of children published by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on 4th October 2002.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am delighted at last to have the opportunity of debating in your Lordships' House the report by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the UK's performance in relation to its children. I am grateful to the Minister and the select band of noble Lords who will speak on this important subject tonight. I am sure that we shall have quality if not quantity. I must state my interests. I act as a parliamentary ambassador to the NSPCC. It is an unpaid position, but I am grateful to the charity for all that it does for children and for the very useful information that it provides to me and my fellow ambassadors.
The UK signed up to the Convention on the Rights of the Child 11 years ago, with all-party support. In doing so, it agreed to be legally bound to implement

1185
the full range of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights of children. Since it was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989, the convention has become the most ratified of all international human rights treaties and it has been accepted by 191 states. The convention's principles and standards are binding on all those who have ratified it and, in order to monitor progress on implementation, the UN has set up a committee of international experts, which reports on signatory countries approximately every five years.
The latest investigation was conducted last year and in October the committee produced an extensive report. While it recognised those areas where progress has been made on the issues of concern raised in the previous report in 1995, there were many areas where it felt that insufficient progress had taken place.
The issues covered by the convention fall into many departmental portfolios. However, since she is now the de facto Minister for children, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to answer most of my concerns. Before I turn to specifics, there were a number of fundamental issues that concerned the committee. It commented that the rights, principles and provisions of the convention should be incorporated into all domestic law and that, although the devolved administrations had ensured that, it had not been done state-wide in the UK. In order to address that, the committee recommended that a permanent body be identified whose role it is to ensure compliance with and implementation of the convention as well as dissemination of information and training about children's rights. It must be overtly and primarily the role of such a body to implement the convention. I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Minister can tell me whether there is any intention to set up such a body or to allow any existing body, such as the Children and Young People's Unit, to evolve into it. There is also clearly a need for a children's commissioner for England but I believe that other noble Lords will address that issue.
The experts were concerned that in the UK we do not have a "rights based" approach to policy development and the convention has not been used as a framework for the development of strategies at all levels of government.
It seems to me that in the convention we have a model which, if rigorously adhered to when developing policies, would give British children the best possible chances in life. However, the opportunity of using it is often missed. Policies based on adult systems and aspects which affect children are often added at the end of the process rather than at the beginning. As good policies are evidence based, we need quality information about the status quo, but it seems that we do not properly monitor the implementation of the convention. We do not even know how much we spend on our children. The committee recommended that budgets must be transparent to allow analysis of the proportion spent on children and the maximum amount possible allocated to identified priorities.
1186
In order to identify those priorities the committee recommended that we establish a nation-wide system to collect data about children under 18 so that we are clear about the current situation and can develop a national plan of action. It often concerns me that the Government take a broad brush approach and many children are left out of the equation. For example, the concentration of Sure Start, excellent though it is, on the 50 most deprived wards leaves many children in the most deprived sections of society out in the cold because they live in pockets of poverty in otherwise affluent areas.
There were many specific concerns raised by the committee. I do not have time to address them all so I shall focus on five. First, the committee repeated its criticism of 1995 saying that it "deeply regrets" the UK Government's refusal to remove the "reasonable chastisement defence" often used in the courts by adults to defend physical violence against children. The convention requires states to protect children from "all forms of physical or mental violence". The committee requires the Government to do that "with urgency" and,
"to promote positive, participatory and non-violent forms of discipline and respect for children's equal right to human dignity and physical integrity".
I have repeated that plea many times in this House. It is unbelievable to me that, in a society that claims to be civilised, the most vulnerable do not have equal protection under the law of assault. Given all the research that shows the damage to brain development and subsequent mental and physical health and sexual function done by violence itself and the stress associated with violence, I find it hard to understand why the Government are so adamantly opposed to implementing that part of the convention. Given what we know about the link between the experience of physical abuse as a child and the cycle of future violence against children when the victim grows up, why will the Government not put a full stop to it right now?
The second matter that I would like to highlight is the committee's concern about the Government's refusal to withdraw their reservation on Article 22 of the convention with regard to immigration. We do not treat asylum seeking children well in this country. Many of them are detained with their families outside the general community; they have access to only 76 per cent of the benefits available to other families and often have no access to the normal health, welfare and educational facilities that resident children have. When they turn 18 unaccompanied children are dispersed to other parts of the country just when they are settling down, away from the only friends they have. That does not help them to settle down quickly and become part of the community. All those matters were criticised by the committee and I wonder whether the Minister will tell us how the Government plan to address them.
The third area of great concern to me is that the committee felt that the UK's record on the rights of young offenders has worsened since 1995. In this country we lock up more children and crirninalise

1187
children at a much earlier age than anywhere else in Europe. With an age of criminal responsibility of 10 in England and eight in Scotland, we are well below the average of 13 across Europe. The committee urged the Government yet again to raise "considerably" the age of criminal responsibility and yet recently in your Lordships' House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, confirmed that the Government have no such intention. I ask the Minister what can possibly be the justification for that? It treats children inappropriately and leads to ridiculous paradoxes in the law such as the proposals in the current Sexual Offences Bill, which claims that 12 year-olds can understand enough about rape to be guilty of it, but not enough to be able to consent to sex.
The report regretted that children are still detained in the same penal facilities as adults saying that, where it is absolutely necessary to detain children, they should always be in special facilities. However, the experts recommended that detention is used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time, with advocacy services and an equal statutory right to education, health and protection services. Sadly the prison system is failing to protect the children in its care. There are far too many cases of children who are abused and attacked in prison and 14 children have committed suicide in prison since 1995. Most could have been avoided if the right facilities had been available.
Fourthly, this country is the fourth richest in the world, yet almost one in three of our 13.5 million children is living below the poverty line. Although some progress has been made to take children out of poverty, there is still a long way to go as the committee identified. It asked for a review of the policies that give 16 to 18 year-olds fewer benefits and social security allowances than adults and a lower minimum wage. It also urged better efforts to address the causes of youth homelessness and all possible measures to accelerate the elimination of child poverty.
Finally, on the health front there were several recommendations, some of the most important being those about the high level of teenage pregnancies and the lack of support for teenage mothers. Mental health was another particular area of our health services picked out as needing major improvement. Mental health is the third most common health problem in the country and, if we can treat it when people are young, we can save an awful lot of human misery. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what is being done to improve mental health services for young people.
We do not own our children. We have the privilege of caring for them, loving and guiding them while they are young. However, we owe them the best possible policies based on all the knowledge and expertise available to us. The UN committee is made up of 10 of the world's greatest experts on child development, education, health and welfare. We should listen to what it has to say and put it into practice. I challenge the Government to show their commitment to our children by implementing every recommendation in
1188
the report. After all, we have signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and we should implement it without any reservation.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on her tenacity—I believe she has tried four times—in securing this debate. I also congratulate her on a stimulating and challenging introduction. I look forward to the Minister's reply as I know that she too is genuinely interested in issues related to children and has led many initiatives both in health and education. I should declare an interest in that I am the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children and a trustee of the Trust for the Study of Adolescence which I shall mention later. Rather than go through the many points in the UN committee's report, I shall concentrate on what I think are some important themes, and I shall support the notion of a children's commissioner.
We have heard the Government put a great deal of emphasis on the well-being of children. There are many initiatives—the setting up of the Children and Young People's Unit, Sure Start, Connexions, Quality Protects and the Children's Fund to name but a few. However, while much good work is being done, there is a lack of cohesion. The child needs to be the focal point. Confusion at a local level among professionals and families can mean that operating systems are a focal point rather than the child. Today I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that effort is being put into co-ordinating services. During a debate in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago, co-ordination between health and social services in delivering for children was discussed. As I said then, many reports, both from the Government and the voluntary sector recognise co-ordination as a huge problem.
Turning to my themes, it seems to me that we simply do not know enough about some basics with regard to children as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. For example, do we analyse at a national and local level? What proportion of different departmental budgets are being spent on children as a whole? Do we have, for the countries of the UK, data on children as a whole—their health, their habits and their education?
I know that we have data in different government departments, but children do not come in departments, but as a whole. Reports, such as the key data series on young people from the Trust for the Study of Adolescence and the recent report, The Well Being of Children in the UK from the University of York and Save the Children are extremely helpful. That latter report calls for,
"the collation of country level monitoring of child well-being into a routinely produced comprehensive report on the well-being of children in the UK".
Such information would, if comprehensive and accessible, be extremely useful to those working with children and young people and their families.

1189
Other themes in the UN report deal with adequate participation of children in society—sensitivity to their needs, their rights and entitlements and their best interests as paramount. I think that we have got better at listening to children. Many organisations and government departments have focus groups for young people. Many schools have school councils. We have a youth parliament. But it all sometimes feels disjointed and tokenistic.
Issues relating to children should be analysed in every government Bill and the costs and implications set out in relation to action needed in order to implement the Bill. The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children has done some of that analysis, as have children's organisations, but centralisation of knowledge would be more powerful. Again, it is about placing children at the centre of legislation. They matter a lot, perhaps more than anything.
I had the pleasure last week of attending the meeting jointly organised by the All-Party Group for Children and that for families, where the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the ombudsman for Norway spoke about their roles and responsibilities. Hearing them reinforced my view that England needs a children's commissioner, who is independent of government. Wales and many other countries have one. Northern Ireland will have one. As much as anything, such a post says that children are important; it demonstrates that children are taken seriously; that they have rights and entitlements; and that their best interests are paramount.
The idea of a children's commissioner for England has been mooted for some time by children's organisations, for example UNICEF, Save the Children Fund and the NSPCC. Both the Norwegian ombudsman and the Welsh commissioner emphasised the need for independence. Both emphasised that the office should be made known to children so that they could actively relate to the commissioner, for example by being able to meet him or her and being able to telephone his or her office directly.
The Norwegian ombudsman reflected that children did not want tokenism, they want a real adult to represent their rights, not someone pretending to be young by wearing a baseball cap back to front. How long, until we in England embrace the concept of an independent commissioner for children who will co-ordinate activity, share information about children and collaborate with government departments, the voluntary sector, families and children to promote not only children's welfare but their entitlements and their rights?
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on initiating this important debate. Perhaps I may also congratulate the Government on the many initiatives that have been developed since they came into office to improve the lives of children and on their targets in relation to poverty, education and child health. It is within the framework of equal
1190
access to opportunities that all our children will reap the benefits of our society. But noble Lords would not expect me to say that without also saying, "There remains much to be done".
I should like to take a few minutes to draw attention to areas that are not only the subject of the UN report but also the focus of concern for many organisations working for children in the UK. Today I had the privilege of chairing a conference for the National Society for the Protection of Children reviewing the legislation relating to children in family proceedings with particular focus on the Children Act 1989 and its relationship to the convention. I do not hold such a position as an ambassador; I just help out.
With the NSPCC conference fresh in my mind, I wish to bring your Lordships' attention to an area where we are not meeting the human rights of young people, where we would all be at one in our belief that we should be meeting the need, the right, enshrined in the convention: the right to family life. What surprised me today was the response from many young people in care who told of the way in which they were being deprived of this basic right. Together with the Who Cares? Trust through the Who Cares? magazine, the views of young people in care were sought through a questionnaire—700 young people responded.
I commend the report to your Lordships. It has direct messages from this group of young people. Not only is the right to family life enshrined in the convention, but the Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations emphasise the importance of maintaining contact between child and family members and other important people in their lives unless this is identified as being clearly contrary to the child's interests. Sixty per cent of the respondents to the questionnaire said that they did not see enough of their fathers. More than one-third of the sample did not see enough of their mothers or siblings. A substantial proportion did not see enough of their friends. Half did not see enough of their previous carer. These children are either not being listened to or their wishes are being overridden, or there is simply not enough time in the system allocated to ensuring that these basic needs are met.
It was interesting that where social workers were there to help such children, they clearly made a difference. I cannot pretend that achieving family contact is easy, but in the words of the NSPCC report, in these days of high-speed low-cost options available to enable contact, is it really necessary for children separated from their families to be as isolated as they clearly are? Some still find it difficult to reach a simple helpline such as Childline as phones are still not available in some homes and institutions. It does not have to be like that. In the words of one young woman, "I think being in care is brilliant and I 'wouldn't change anything". I wonder what the Government would propose to have every child in care able to say that.
Another astounding fact was that 50 per cent of the children did not know the name of their local authority—their corporate parent—and that is after several years of the Quality Protects programme.

1191
One of the committee's recommendations is that the Government should carry out large-scale public education campaigns and programmes on reducing child death and child abuse. This debate gives me the opportunity to put on record my thanks on behalf of all those involved in the "Stop It Now!" programme, which I chair, for its partnership with government departments—in particular, the Home Office—that will result in awareness programmes being developed, first in pilot areas and then in the wider community. "Stop It Now!" works with schools, local groups, professionals and, indeed, abusers. We have provided a variety of materials and are now working on a leaflet to advise parents of children who abuse other children. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will continue that partnership, which goes far to meet the expectations of the UN committee.
However, like my colleagues, I cannot congratulate the Minister on the position of children in the juvenile justice system. Children are being sent into detention in far greater numbers than in other European countries. Indeed, Anne Owers, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, speaking at the Sieff conference last September, compared the juvenile justice system in England and Wales unfavourably with that which existed in Sudan years ago, which has dramatically improved.
In our advanced society, our children do not go into detention as a last resort, as the convention recommends. If we are to continue that policy, those children should at least be given the full protection of the Children Act 1989. Local authorities seldom see them; needs assessments do not take place; and they are ignored by area child protection committees. Following the successful challenge to the Government's position by the Howard League for Penal Reform, will those youngsters have more of their human rights met?
I should have liked the opportunity to raise the chaotic situation existing in the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, but perhaps all I can do in the available time is to ask the Minister when waiting time will be reduced before children will receive the representation to which they have a clear human right. Indeed, when will Section 122 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 see the light of day?
There is no doubt that the Government care about children—I have witnessed that—but are we to have a children's commissioner? I was not always convinced that that would be the best way forward for England, with our complex regions and high population. What convinced me was the Laming report. If we must have such complex structures to meet our children's needs, why not just have a commissioner for children and have done with it? At least then someone with no other agenda would be looking after children and the Government would have someone to respond more effectively to the issues raised by the UN convention committee.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate on a most important subject, and for the excellence of her introduction.
I declare two interests: the first as the chair of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders' committee on children and crime; the other as the independent chair of the Welsh Assembly government's recent review on the safety of children in the National Health Service.
On the first, I merely echo what has already been said about the age of criminal responsibility and the criminal justice system. Our committee's reports speak for themselves. I wish that the Government—who have focused well on social exclusion in some areas—were a little more brave in this one and focused on the fact that the children who appear before the criminal courts are generally excluded and that we need to include them, not concentrate on crime and punishment, which are often a blunt instrument.
On the second interest, I simply draw attention to the excellent work done by the Welsh Assembly since we produced our report with 150 recommendations—almost all of which are being put into practice and, I believe, have strengthened the position of children's safety in the NHS in Wales, compared with England.
I want principally to speak on a subject that all noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned: the possibility of having a children's commissioner in England. I start my comments from the Welsh perspective.
When I chaired the Assembly review that I mentioned, I spent some time with Peter Clarke, then the new Children's Commissioner. He is doing an excellent job in Wales. I do not suggest that the same be provided in England, because he is underfunded; he has insufficient capacity to undertake case work; and his budget is pathetically poor for his amount of work. In my view, far greater value for money could be achieved if his office was properly funded. With his abilities and his team, he could achieve so much more he could achieve so much if he were able to do the job to the full.
One of the most valuable conclusions of the UN committee is that we should have a children's commissioner in England. However, I urge the Government to avoid using terms such as a "Children's Czar". Quite apart from the use of such language giving a misleading view of history, it also provides a completely naïve view of the needs of children. I deprecate reading such language in the newspapers. A sort of Uncle Mac in boots just will not work.
On the other hand, I urge the Government not to establish an enormous bureaucracy, which would simply lead to the children's commissioner shuffling a forest of what I suspect might come to be known as pied paper. Rather, I suggest that they should take account of three elements in setting up a children's

1193
commission for England. A children's commissioner should be answerable to these Houses of Parliament through a children's commission, via a Minister.
First, there should be a structure. It needs to be a regional structure. Wales has an ideal critical mass for a pilot study—2¾ million people. It is unrealistic to translate that to 50-odd million people without setting up a structure. I would like to hear a commitment from the Government, not only to set up the structure, but to take the time needed to do it properly and to provide the money needed to do it properly.
Secondly, I urge that a children's commission in England should have the powers it needs to do the job properly. At the root of that is responding to children. Children in Wales ring up the Children's Commissioner, who has a help-line and is accessible. The starting point should be access for children and explanation available to them so that they are empowered to take their own rights in their own hands. That means that he must be able to respond to those rights; he must have the people to do the casework; and he must have enough resources to be able to take cases to court, including judicially reviewing local authorities and government. So powers are very important.
Thirdly, he must be accountable. A children's commission can be accountable to Parliament through the means that I outlined. It must be a transparent process; otherwise it will inevitably become misleading and bureaucratic. So I urge on the Minister that it is now time to give a commitment to a children's commission headed by a chief commissioner with the structure, powers and accountability that I described. I say to the Minister that if, partly as a result of the UN committee's report and partly through what one can fairly see as developing government policy towards children, the Government can announce progress towards a children's commission, it will be seen as the greatest single contribution to the welfare and rights of children that any government have introduced since child labour was removed from the factories of this country.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on introducing this short debate on the treatment of children in the United Kingdom. I declare that I am a patron of the International Child Health Group of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The UN report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child identified many issues requiring the Government's attention. But I shall focus on only three: first, the need for all national policies to incorporate children's rights; secondly, social exclusion of vulnerable children; and, thirdly, children of ethnic minority groups and looked-after children in schools and in private fostering.
1194
Like other noble Lords, I congratulate the Government on their interventions for the benefit of children. I also agree that they appear not to be co-ordinated and that, therefore, there is much to be done. One of the general concerns of the UN report was,
"the absence of a global vision of children's rights and its translation onto national plan of action".
Clearly, government departments need to listen to children and young people to define their needs and perceived priorities. That implies that the impact on children of all policies drawn up by the Government should be assessed. Will the Minister tell us how the Government plan to implement that recommendation?
If voluntary-sector organisations such as Childline and the NSPCC listen to children, surely the time has come for the Government also to implement plans of action wanted by children. Among urgent children's issues gathered by voluntary organisations is the need to reduce and deal effectively with bullying in schools.
The Government's most recent initiative on social exclusion is aimed at ethnic minority groups, some of whom have younger age profiles than the majority population. For example, the 2001 Census of Population found that 38 per cent of Bangladeshis were under 16, and 55 per cent of the mixed group—one white parent and one from an ethnic minority group—were under 16.
Although Chinese and Indian pupils tend to achieve higher than the national average at GCSE, those from African, Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds achieve significantly below the national average. Most of the ethnic minority children in inner-city schools are not achieving their potential.
In 2000–01, black pupils were more likely to be permanently excluded from schools in England than children from any other ethnic group. Children in that group, particularly the boys, were up to four Limes more likely to be permanently excluded from school. As a consequence, they are at risk of failing to achieve their educational potential. In February 2002, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published findings on the needs of excluded young people in multi-cultural communities. Significant numbers of 16 to 17 year-olds were disengaged from education, employment and training. Many were unknown to the careers services, and a disproportionate number was from minority ethnic groups. Looked-after children were strongly represented in the sample. Nearly half of the study group had been excluded front school or had dropped out of education of their own accord at an early age.
Young people from ethnic minorities had often experienced racism in school and among those looked after in care. Mainstream agencies appeared to have been unable to respond adequately to racial diversity. Local voluntary organisations were often the only agencies in contact with such young people, and their help was greatly appreciated, particularly among those from ethnic minority groups. Although the underlying causes of that exclusion are complex and include the

1195
effects of social class, I ask the Minister to outline the Government's response to the issue highlighted by the UN report. In particular, how will we monitor vulnerable children who are exposed to discrimination? One commendable government intervention is the high profile initiative aimed at reducing truancy by targeting feckless parents who collude with their children's absence from classes.
The issue of private fostering affects large numbers of African children born abroad and sent here for education. At the Report stage of the Adoption and Children Bill on 23rd October last year, I drew attention to the estimated 10,000 children being cared for under private fostering arrangements. That is recorded in Hansard at col. 1398. The tragedy of Victoria Climbié emphasised, among other shortcomings of our social service and health systems, the urgent need to register all private foster parents. Will the Minister tell us of the Government's plans to register private foster parents?
In conclusion, I draw to the Minister's attention paragraph 24 of the UN committee's report. It says:
"The Committee requests that specific information be included in the next periodic report on the measures and programmes relevant to the Convention on the Rights of the Child undertaken by the State party to follow up on the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and taking account of … aims of education".
There are complex issues to be addressed for the benefit and welfare of all our children, and the Government should seriously consider the appointment of an independent commissioner for children.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Walmsley on initiating the debate. It is an important debate and, as she said, we have waited a long time for it. I echo the words with which my noble friend finished her speech. We signed up to the convention 11 years ago and it is about time that we implemented it in full. As Cherie Blair, the Prime Minister's wife, said, we are still not according full rights to children, as they are entitled.
The report by the UN commissioners is a shocking indictment of what has gone on in this country. We are—or we claim to be—the fourth richest country in the world, and we have had strong economic growth in the past seven years. Yet we still have about 3.4 million children—one in four—living in poverty. The figure is better than it was; recently published research by David Piachaud and Helen Sutherland indicates that 750,000 fewer children live in poverty. Nevertheless, one in four is still a shocking statistic.
Not only do children live in poverty; our society is too often violent towards them. Many is the time when a child misbehaves in a shop that the parent's response is to clip him or her around the ear with a few choice expletives. That experience repeats itself. There are problems with children in school. These children,
1196
when frustrated, hit out violently. They lash out, they are abusive and their language, too, is not what one would want it to be.
The result is a vicious circle: the commissioners drew attention to the vicious circle of the high rate of pregnancy. They called for better parenting classes and better facilities for teenage mothers. Yes, we have Sure Start. It is working well. But, as my noble friend mentioned, Sure Start is in only the 50 most deprived areas. It is in the process of being rolled out, but it must be rolled out faster.
As regards exclusions, there is the incredible statistic that 16 per cent of exclusions are now primary school children. We know that excluded children are frequently out of school completely. That does not help with their integration in society. The problem of bullying is another issue to which the commissioners drew attention. We must develop within schools more programmes—for example, nurture groups—which help children develop trusting and loving relationships between themselves.
Furthermore, we are not listening to children enough. Every time there is an education Bill in this House, a group of noble Lords combines to ask the Minister to place on the face of the Bill the right of children to be listened to. That is vitally important. We have the facility of Childline. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, referred to schools councils and the youth parliament. But we do not automatically listen to children in this country.
Finally, a number of noble Lords have raised the matter of a children's commissioner. I, too, participated in the seminar last Wednesday when Peter Clarke from Wales and Trond Waage from Norway spoke about their countries' experiences. I was moved by what Trond Waage said. It was interesting that initially there was a great deal of distrust about his appointment. The vote in the Norwegian Parliament was 51 for and 49 against a children's ombudsman.
The arguments against were: why was he needed? Would his very existence not weaken parental authority? Was it not an unnecessary and expensive piece of bureaucracy? One can hear those arguments readily being touted around in this country. I was moved by what Trond Waage said that he did. It was summed up in the three words, "protection", "provision" and "participation". There should be protection for children in cases of child abuse, bullying and unfair treatment. Provision should be made for children by speaking up for them in legislation and ensuring that their interests are considered in the legislative process. Children should participate. They should be encouraged to contact the Internet parliament by telephone or on the website. He said that there was an active debate on the question of war in Iraq on his Internet parliament.
Clearly, children have trust in him and are willing to telephone him and talk about the problems that they encounter. Childline is good, but not good enough. Children's committees and Cabinet committees for children have been established. The Climbié inquiry showed how poorly co-ordination is working at the

1197
moment. The noble Lord, Lord Lamming, suggested children's trusts. Like others, I consider that that muddies the waters. It would be much better—and long beyond time—for us to establish a children's commissioner.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this debate crosses so many departmental boundaries that I was keen to speak in it. We have had an interesting discussion and I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for introducing it. Our debate forms part of a process that will continue long beyond this evening.
In one sense it is rather odd to be debating today this particular United Nations report, at a time when the whole authority of the UN is under threat and its resolutions from 12 years ago are being flouted. But we must not be diverted on to that subject because the report on the treatment of our children covers important matters.
However, the report should be seen in context. It was issued with others on different countries, including Sudan and Israel, where I am linked with two charities involved in children's issues. I know a little of the position in those countries, which is much more difficult than is the case for any child in this country. However, real points have been made in the report and certainly we should not be complacent.
The first question raised both in the report and by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was whether we should alter the law on reasonable chastisement. The Government have said no and I am inclined to agree with them. Many people, including myself, accept that the occasional smack from a parent should be allowed—although not, I hasten to add, as the first resort referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in her reminiscences from the supermarket. We are also all agreed that beating children is a most dreadful abuse which quite rightly deserves and gets, when convictions are obtained, long prison sentences. So the argument hinges on how to define what is reasonable, the subject of many debates in this House. I have not seen evidence that the law as it stands has been misused to prevent the conviction of child abusers and I do not think that it should be changed without further evidence or without considering substituting the wording for what might be called "more reasonable" terms. However, we all know the difficulties of changing legal wording.
The next question was whether we detain too many children and young people. Certainly it is wrong for young people to be sent to adult prisons. I accept that the Government are doing their best to avoid that, but in fact more young people are being detained now than was the case previously. However, in some cases detention is necessary. Given that, the point I want to stress is that we must try to make detention constructive and useful for the young person concerned. More effort must be made to include into the regime proper education, drug rehabilitation programmes and so forth for every young person.
1198
Often young offenders come from highly unsatisfactory backgrounds and their period in detention can provide the opportunity to help them realise that they can be useful citizens, and give them the time to gain hope for a better life through new skills and education. I saw efforts of that kind being made in my former constituency in a young offenders centre where they tried out new schemes and different ideas proposed by the Home Office.
I do not think that it will help to put on local authorities a statutory duty to safeguard children in prison, which has been the effect of last year's court case. Prisons are already overseen by boards of visitors—they are to be reformed and renamed, but we know what they are—as well as by prison inspectors, the Audit Commission, Members of Parliament and so forth. Furthermore, local authority social services departments already have a great deal to do in carrying out their own duties.
We all know that the Government are missing their targets for reducing child poverty. The economic situation of the country is ominous at the moment. I shall not develop that except to say that it bodes ill for child poverty as well as for other objectives.
I shall not say much about sexual abuse and exploitation, not because those issues are not of the first importance and extremely worrying, but because soon we shall start our debates on the sexual offences Bill. We shall then be able to hold a more structured discussion than would be possible tonight.
The report was also rightly concerned about the level of teenage pregnancies. The decline in our society's values shows up in a truly awful way in this matter. In comparison with other European countries, our record is shaming. It seems obvious that lax and permissive attitudes towards sexual relations in our media and wider society contribute to the problem. Of course education in our schools, through doctors' surgeries and other health centres, is essential. Parental attitudes are also an important contributory factor, but many of the teenagers concerned have had little or no help from that quarter. Indeed, teenage pregnancies mean teenage parents, and that too often leads to another generation of deprived children and worse.
The report is about the rights of the child, but rights have no value unless someone else has both the duty and the means to confer them. After all, the great Education Act 1944 did not confer a right to education. It placed on local authorities a duty to provide schools and on parents a duty to ensure that their children attended. Whenever we consider rights, we must consider the duties which go with them.
The duties fall mainly on the Government, but some could be shared by the proposed children's commissioner. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicated that careful thought is required in designing how that office should function and in taking the discussion forward.
But duties fall also on parents. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, spoke of the right to family life. Parents should be the principal people on whom children lean. We should always frame our policies to

1199
support parents and families, and, indeed, to help provide substitute families through adoption and fostering when the actual family does not exist or cannot give support, as we discussed at length during the passage of a Bill not long ago.
We know that there is a strong link between neglect and deprivation and child criminality. The report helps us to see ourselves as others see us, as the poet has it. That is very important because our children, after all, are our future.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for initiating the debate. I associate myself with her remarks about the NSPCC. I pay tribute to her formal role, and to the informal role of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, with that august charity. I am also grateful for the opportunity for your Lordships' House, as a body, to focus its mind on these important issues. The Government are committed to raising public awareness of the convention and its principles across the nation. Our debate will help in that task.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child published its observations on the UK's implementation of the convention on 4th October. In doing so, the committee praised much of what has been done in the UK. It acknowledged the development of structures within government, including the role of the Minister for Children and Young People and the Children and Young People's Unit, which is, as a part of recommendation 13, the highly visible permanent body to which the noble Baroness referred.
The committee praised our commitment to ending child poverty and to increasing children's participation and our intention to publish an overarching strategy. It also highlighted some concerns, many of which, if not all, have been raised by noble Lords today and on which I shall focus my brief remarks.
The convention is necessarily wide-ranging. Its provisions relate to every area of a child's life. Despite being described as Minister for Children—a post I quite fancy—the responsibilities for implementing the convention lie across different government departments. Each department is aware of the specific recommendations and will take them into consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, questioned the lack of a rights-based approach. The overarching strategy for children and young people will set out our agenda for children over the next 10 years and the outcomes for which we are aiming. It will be framed within the principles of the UN convention, which will give us a rights-based approach.
As noble Lords would expect, we have taken measures already. The Government have laid an explanatory memorandum in another place which has started the process of ratifying Optional Protocol II of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in
1200
regard to an issue we have not discussed in your Lordships' House—that is, under-18s in the Armed Forces. It is an issue about which noble Lords will be concerned.
In England we shall shortly be producing the overarching strategy for children and young people, which, as I said, takes the UNCRC as its framework. It will aim to improve outcomes for children and to ensure that they play a full part in society.
At the UK level, my right honourable colleague the Minister for Children and Young People is currently considering how we can co-ordinate implementation of the convention more effectively. That will be important in the lead-up to our next report to the committee in 2008.
I now turn to the specific issues raised. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lady Massey and with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on the issue of the collection of data. We absolutely recognise the need to do this, and to do it as effectively as possible.
The national statistics education and training theme group, which has membership from all four UK administrations, will be looking at the extent to which information covered by the convention can be compiled and disseminated on a consistent basis. The committee welcomed the intention to publish what we describe as a regular state of children report on the key outcomes for children and young people in England as part of the forthcoming strategy.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, raised the question of the co-ordination of services. I agree that this is critical. It is why we have moved towards the children centre model in terms of our early years provision and the children trust model in terms of the processes of bringing together education, social care and health in a way that will be more effective. The early years model will reach 650,000 children in our most deprived communities, but will be a model on which we can build right across the nation and will indeed mainstream some of the key lessons that we have learnt from the policies on Sure Start.
It is a particularly critical and important way of approaching the issue raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, of teenage pregnancies. The phenomenon of teenage pregnancy is a multi-faceted one. It is for government to work across government departments. It is important, particularly for the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, to be clear about implementing the strategy, but we shall be focusing on this matter in the overarching strategy for children and young people.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, focused their attention on the issue of smacking. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that the distinction is absolutely critical between what goes on in a family home that would be described as reasonable and what is child abuse. We do not accept under any circumstances, nor would we wish to see committed under any circumstances, any form of child

1201
abuse. We are satisfied that our approach to this issue is in accordance with the convention in terms of the protection of children. We do not wish to divert from the attention that needs to be given to children who suffer from abuse. We must make sure that our focus is on those who are in need of our protection.
Within that, it is important to deal with the issues of parenting—raised graphically by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in terms of what she visually had experience of. We are attempting to promote positive parenting. It is a fundamental part of the mainstream Sure Start programme. We also support organisations such as Parentline and the National Family and Parenting Institute, which do phenomenal work. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, that we have 542 Sure Start programmes. These operate much more broadly across the country. Mainstreaming the principles of Sure Start is a fundamental part of this strategy.
A number of speakers focused on the idea of a children's commissioner. We are looking carefully—and I pay tribute to the work that Peter Clarke is doing in Wales—at whether this would be an appropriate role within England. In his initial response on 28th January to the report by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, Alan Milburn remitted consideration of the report's recommendations to the group working on the Green Paper on children at risk. I serve as a Minister on that group and I can tell the House that we are actively considering the matter. We shall publish our conclusions later in the spring.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made a point about bureaucracy which is critical. I am sure that noble Lords will accept that a children's commissioner is not an answer to all the issues that are being raised. The matter is under active consideration and I will come hack to the House on that. I am grateful for the views that have been expressed, which I shall feed back.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke about the interests of asylum-seeking children. I accept that we are always looking for ways in which we can support them more effectively. But the level of support for children who are part of an asylum-seeking family is identical to the support that is provided for children in families on income support. We are examining carefully the issues of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Dispersal is not automatic. We generally try to find ways in which we can support such children and try to make sure that they are dealt with effectively. However, the noble Baroness's points will be passed on to my noble friend in the Home Office.
Noble Lords focused on youth justice. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with NACRO, an organisation I have known and respected for a long time. I agree entirely that we should make sure that our children are dealt with effectively. Although the age of criminal responsibility in this country is one of the lowest in Europe, I recognise that there is more to be done. Again, this is part of the work being done on the Children at Risk Green Paper. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, education and drug rehabilitation are critical in that respect.
1202
Noble Lords focused on education. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, talked about children in care, as did others, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. A social exclusion unit report is due which looks specifically at greater support for children in care. It is an important issue; I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in his place. He and I have debated these issues on many occasions, and I hope he recognises our commitment to supporting these children more effectively. I work very closely with my colleague Jacqui Smith in the Department of Health and we are focusing on what more we can do.
The Department of Health recently undertook a comprehensive review of private fostering which will be important to the noble Lord, Lord Chart. However, it is worth pointing out that Victoria Climbié was not privately fostered.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, also talked about our ethnic minority strategies. It is very important in terms of the strategy just launched in education to support the children from different ethnic minority groups, particularly those from the Afro-Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Pakistan communities, who are not doing as well in the education system as we would like.
Finally, I agree that the level of child poverty in the UK is unacceptable. That is why the Prime Minister has made a commitment to eradicate child poverty within a generation, a government target of which I am very proud. We are making progress, not on every front but in important ways. There are 1.4 million fewer children living in absolute poverty than in 1996–97.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for initiating the debate and to all noble Lords. I am proud to be part of a government who have made a commitment to children and young people. I am pleased that the UN committee has recognised some of the progress that we have made, but we know that more areas need our attention. We work hard to try to make an improvement in every child's life. I believe we have made huge strides, and we will continue to do so to the best of our ability.

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
8.47 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 4.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) This section shall not come into force until 30 days after the Secretary of State has determined that the system of incentives within relevant NHS bodies operates to discourage NI-IS bodies from discharging patients prematurely."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come again to one of the major causes of concern about the Bill. It is a one-sided Bill which punishes local authorities for

1203
delayed discharges but has no corresponding provisions to incentivise NHS bodies or to punish them if they discharge patients incorrectly.
Amendment No. 46 would add a new subsection to the end of Clause 4, deferring the implementation of the clause—that is, the imposition of fines and not any other part of the Bill—until 30 days after the Secretary of State has determined that the system of incentives within relevant NHS bodies operates to discourage them from discharging patients prematurely.
It is already clear that the incentives created by the Bill are exactly as one would expect. NHS bodies are working out how they can maximise their income from fines. I am sure that several noble Lords will have received the interesting briefing from the Local Government Association which shows how in one local authority area, a trust has virtually absented itself from discussions about how to reduce delayed discharges and has instead started to forecast a revenue stream from the new fines. I do not blame trusts for that because it is a rational response to a financial system. I blame the Government for creating the system.
The logical next step for the trusts is to accelerate the declaration of readiness for discharge so as to get fines running as soon as possible. Local authorities will, logically, try to avoid the fines by making arrangements for the patients' discharge even if those arrangements are sub-optimal.
The real sufferers are the patients. The Government have been congratulating themselves on reductions in delayed discharges, but have kept quiet about the record levels of emergency readmissions. The latest quarterly figures show more than 36,000 emergency readmissions for the over-75s—a rate of 8.2 per cent, which is up nearly one percentage point on a year earlier.
The Minister may like to reflect on the performance of Barnsley, whose low delayed discharge rate he glorified in Committee. Barnsley may get patients out of hospital quickly, but 20 per cent of them—over double the national average—go back within 28 days. That is why the Bill is so dangerous. We are talking not about statistics, but about the human misery of readmission.
The Minister said in a letter to my noble friend Lord Howe last week that there is no connection between readmission rates and speeding up discharges and that the data are suspect. However, the plain fact is that the Bill will encourage early discharge. It is simply not credible to suppose that that will not lead to more readmissions.
When we debated the amendment in Committee, the Minister confirmed that the Government intended that the new system of NHS financial flows would work from 2005–06, so that the cost of patients readmitted within a certain period could not be recovered by the trust. I think that the new system is based on the assumption that early discharges result in emergency readmissions, so I am a bit confused about the Government's real views, given the letter sent to
1204
my noble friend Lord Howe last week. Do the Government believe that there is a connection between early discharges and readmissions? If there is not, why are they introducing a complicated embellishment to the financial flow system from 2005–06?
I could go into the many question marks that hang over the scheme that will operate from 2005–06, but the purpose of the amendment is not to adjudicate on whether a system of incentives in the NHS will exist. We know that it will not exist in October 2003, when, according to the Chief Executive Bulletin two weeks ago, the Government will be implementing the Bill, notwithstanding the clear view of your Lordships' House that it should be delayed at least until April 2004. Incentives will not exist in 2004–05 and whether they will exist in 2005–06 is a matter of extreme conjecture.
The amendment would simply delay the fining aspect of the Bill until there is such an incentive system in place. That may or may not be in 2005–06, but it is unlikely to be any earlier. There is no incentive system in the Bill to ensure that the NHS does not incorrectly transfer patients out of NHS care, as highlighted in the recent report of the health ombudsman, which we have discussed a couple of times earlier today. When fining is introduced, the NHS trust will have an incentive to discharge the patient as rapidly as possible and the local authority will be seen as a convenient whipping boy. That view will be aided and abetted by the PCT, which will also want the local authority to pick up the bill. Where are the incentives in the Bill for the NHS to discharge patients properly? I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I disagree with the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I refute her assertion that the Bill is one-sided. It will not work unless the NHS and local government pull themselves together and start to act together in a way that, unfortunately, is not happening in a considerable number of places in the country at the moment. The effect of the health service and local government failing to get their act together is the problem of delayed discharges. People are suffering. We know that there are examples of good practice where health authorities and local government seem able to ensure an integrated approach, and delayed discharges are kept to a minimum.
I emphasise a point that I made in Committee. Local government is not being treated as a whipping boy, as the noble Baroness suggests. The incentives, controls and monitoring will seek to ensure that the system is as robust on the national health side as it is on the local government side. We must ensure that there are no unintended consequences from the Bill. There is nothing that I would want to see less than the NHS declaring patients ready for discharge too early.
I remind the noble Baroness of Clause 2(1)(b), which refers clearly to a situation in which,
"the responsible NHS body considers that it is unlikely to be safe to discharge the patient".

1205
In other words, the notification of a patient's likely need for community care services cannot kick in when the body considers that to discharge a patient would be unsafe.
We have the single assessment process, and the incentives in the Bill aim to get that process right. That should lead to a much more integrated approach between the local authority and the NHS trust.
All trusts are subject to rigorous performance management by strategic health authorities. Readmission rates are a specific performance indicator used to determine a trust's star rating. Anyone who has worked in the NHS recently or knows senior people in individual NHS trusts know that performance indicators leading to the star rating of an individual trust bite on the behaviour and actions of the senior management.
The Commission for Health Improvement has a remit to monitor quality and ensure that trusts provide a high standard of care, which they would not be doing if they discharged their patients from hospital too early. The Commission for Health Improvement provides an effective way in which to monitor what is happening.
The impact that high numbers of readmissions will have on a hospital's capacity acts as a disincentive for a hospital to discharge patients too soon. If hospitals need to treat the same patients twice because they have come back to hospital as an emergency readmission, they will have less capacity to treat patients on waiting lists and will not meet access targets, which will damage their star rating. These incentives are powerful enough to ensure that hospitals will not discharge patients from hospital before they are ready to go.
By 2005–6, the financial flow system will enhance the incentives that we already have. I do not see what benefit would be gained from delaying the introduction of the charging element of the Bill when it is the repayment that will provide strong incentives for all local authorities to put in place the services that they need to allow the prompt discharge of older people from hospital. Without the repayment element, the Bill will not be as effective. To delay it would simply mean that in many places it will take longer before older people ready for discharge from hospital can benefit. The noble Baroness omitted to mention the £100 million that is being made available in a full year from the NHS to local government to fund the additional element in relation to the cost of dealing with the current numbers of delayed discharges.
Taken together, I believe that the incentives are right. I believe that the Bill is even-handed. To delay its introduction and the financial penalties would be a disservice to those whom the Bill is intended to help.
9 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to deal with two points raised in his reply. I follow what he says about performance management and star ratings. However, what will be the position when a hospital has become a foundation hospital? How will this system respond to that? Some hospitals will soon be foundation hospitals. Will he
1206
also respond to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the Chief Executive's' Bulletin which was circulated last week and has been the subject of some comment in professional circles?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the Chief Executive's Bulletin, I think that the point is when the new legislation will kick in. A couple of weeks ago, in Committee, noble Lords took a decision. Although I disagreed with it, I think that I intimated then that the Government had reached the view that they would be prepared to delay the Bill's introduction by six months. The Bill will go back to another place, and another place will have to decide what it seeks to do. It may well be that we will discuss this matter further on yet another Monday. I suspect that the Chief Executive's Bulletin merely reflects the points that I made about our intent with regard to introducing the Bill at the beginning of October. As ever, however, Parliament's will will be paramount and supreme.
I cannot say any more in anticipation of legislation on foundation trusts that might be coming our way. All I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is that I very much look forward to debating that issue with her when the time comes.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply—which was perhaps not a great surprise. May I suggest that he read the Chief Executive's Bulletin, which starts off by saying in effect that the House of Lords has decided that there will be a one-year delay, "but we, the NHS, are going to plan for implementation in October"? It sends a clear signal either that the chief executive is acting on his own authority or that Health Ministers are going to ignore your Lordships' House. I also say to the Minister that I had not forgotten the £100 million—I very rarely forget about money—I just do not think that £100 million is at all relevant to the subject that I was discussing: the incentive on the NHS.
We feel that this is a one-sided Bill because it imposes only penalties on local authorities while providing the NHS only with incentives to do the wrong thing—to act simply in a way that maximises its revenue flow. That is why we are concerned that these crude penalty and incentive arrangements will operate harmfully for patients. The Minister has fallen back on an argument to which he has often resorted in discussing many aspects of performance management, but I do not think that we are impressed by the argument that this is another matter that will end up in the star ratings. Waiting lists ended up in the star ratings. Those of us who read the Audit Commission's latest report know what happens to targets that end up in star ratings—they get fiddled. So we cannot see that as a credible solution.
While I have the greatest respect for CHI's ability to monitor what goes on in the NHS, it is not operating in real time; it comes along every so often to examine a whole range of matters. In this amendment we are asking for a very targeted and very specific provision for incentives to counterbalance the impact of the Bill's structure. We have not got that from the Minister

1207
today. I shall take it away and think about it again. However, I think that the Minister can expect to return to the subject on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"DELAYED DISCHARGE PAYMENTS:SUPPLEMENTARY
(1) In prescribing an amount under section 4(4) the appropriate Minister must have regard (among other things) to either or both of the following matters—

(a) costs to NHS bodies of providing accommodation and personal care to patients who are ready to be discharged; and

(b) costs to social services authorities of providing community care services to, and services to carers in relation to, persons who have been discharged.

(2) Any payment which the responsible authority is required to make under section 4 in relation to a qualifying hospital patient shall, subject to subsection (2), be made to the responsible NHS body.
(3) In case of any description prescribed in regulations the payment shall be made to the person prescribed in relation to cases of that description."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"PILOT SCHEMES
The Secretary of State or the Assembly may by order establish pilot schemes for the operation of this Part in selected areas."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49, I wish to speak to the amendments with which it is grouped.
We have already had an interesting ministerial apologia with regard to the content of the Chief Executive's Bulletin and the planning of the NHS in relation to the official date of implementation of the Bill in October 2003, despite the amendment passed in this House. We on these Benches—I am sure that I speak for noble Lords on other Benches in this respect—are determined to see the implementation of the Bill delayed until 2004. I have no doubt that we shall spend many happy hours debating that matter in the future if the Bill returns to this House in a different form. The 2004 implementation date would allow local authorities to assess the impact of the changes on the rights and choices of older people and the services they receive. Delaying the implementation of the fines would allow for joint working between health and social care providers to develop further and could prompt the Government to see the introduction of fines as unnecessary. That is an optimistic hope but also, I hope, a realistic one.
The recent health ombudsman's report adds impetus to the call to delay implementation of the fines. It is likely to take some time for the recommendations of the ombudsman to be put into
1208
place. If there is to be a review of the guidance from the Department of Health, as suggested by the ombudsman, it is only right that it should be fully consulted on following Cabinet Office guidelines that 12 weeks should be given for such consultation. That should be the absolute minimum period. The strategic health authorities would then need to review their criteria to ensure that they were in line with any new guidance produced by the Department of Health. Staff would need to be trained to ensure that they were aware of the guidance and its effect on their decision-making. Until then, there is a danger that flawed criteria could be in use.
In Committee, I went into some detail about the fact that the system introduced by the Government in the Bill for fining for delayed discharge is untested and untried and has been used only in Sweden in very different circumstances. In Committee, the Minister justified resisting the introduction of pilot schemes by saying:
"The first point is that already the NHS and social care services have existing responsibilities to discharge patients in a safe and responsible way. We are not introducing new responsibilities in that sense".—[Official Report, 18/2/03; col. 1065.]
His second reason—also stated at col. 1065 of Hansard—was that,
"the best performing authorities … are already working well together to reduce delayed discharges".
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pricked the bubble of the Barnsley experience. The Minister referred to the experience of both Barnsley and Bristol to justify not introducing pilot schemes. The Minister may regret choosing those examples. Perhaps we should further investigate Bristol's emergency readmission track record.
Is the argument that the best authorities are working so well in partnership that we do not need pilots? Does that mean that the Government can set up—as they seem to be doing under the Bill—a completely unworkable scheme or, indeed, a dangerous scheme without regard to the consequences, and that therefore no pilot scheme is needed? The Minister's logic appears somewhat convoluted; namely, that the implementation of the Bill's provisions is theoretical as they will not bite on the best authorities and that therefore no pilot scheme is needed. Surely one should have a pilot scheme not in the best local authorities but in less-well-performing local authorities, where the provision of a pilot might well bite. One would then see the practicality of the Bill. I suggest that as soon as the Bill's practicality and impact on partnership working are assessed, it will be quickly seen as a wholly unworkable and undesirable piece of legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have just been assured that the best arguments are the old ones. There will be an echo of some such arguments in my response.
We have serious reasons for believing that pilots are not the appropriate step at this stage. Our main objection is that many local authorities have responded to the challenge that has been laid down

1209
and are already creating and following good practice. A pilot project has traditionally tended to involve the small-scale, radical investigation of new ways of working that have not been put into practice. Health and social care partners already have responsibilities to discharge patients in a safe and responsible manner. The reform is simply about ensuring that they do so more effectively and more rapidly. We want health and social care partners to consider how they can invest in and provide better services and to do so now in preparation. I go so far as to say that we need the opposite of a pilot scheme; we need to universalise best practice. There are many developments in the field.
I shall risk giving another example. The noble Lord would be interested in the example of Kirklees, where a discharge service has been established to support vulnerable adults who have been identified as needing rehabilitation back into their home. That team was established using skilled in-house managers who manage focused-care programmes. The care providers are a combination of in-house staff and carers who are contracted from agencies. It is an interesting and effective example.
The Department of Health is committed to making the arrangement work—there is a practical implementation team that is being led by an ex-director of social services and assisted by practitioners seconded from the field to develop the programme. That practical support is extremely important in terms of getting it right, establishing a way in which reimbursement will work and providing a link between the department and the field. We are making as much good practice available as widely as possible. For example, last week we put model documentation on to the website, which is already active and very popular. We are trying to assist local authorities by providing as much information as possible. We are promoting best practice. People in the field say that they have never seen such an emphasis on getting it right. Attention has been concentrated on this matter. To go back to piloting the proposal would send all the wrong signals. We have been overtaken by events in terms of implementation and good practice. The implementation team is working—
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me at this late stage. I agree with her that the change agent team is a fascinating part of the Department of Health website—I spent much time studying it. I do not believe that any noble Lord on this side of the House is in any way trying to undermine what the department is trying to do about the dissemination of good practice. I go back to an example that the Minister gave when we were in Committee; that is, Kingston. What has been missing from the discussion throughout is an attempt to find out why some things work in some areas and why other things do not work in others.
In Committee the Minister quoted three examples: Barnsley, Bristol and Kingston. I have found out a little about why the situation in Kingston works. First, it is a small authority so its percentage decreases are large. Secondly, like Barnsley and Bristol, it happens
1210
to be an area in which much of the property is significantly cheaper than in the surrounding areas, so there are many care homes in comparison with other areas. Thirdly, not only have they conducted much joint planning, but they have also invested in hospital discharge schemes, some of them with the voluntary sector and some with organisations with which I work and others.
Missing from the department's analysis as put forward to us is the contextual information about why some things work and others do not. The only argument the department has come up with time and time again is the lack of a power to force recalcitrant social services departments to do what the NHS wants. That is the flaw in the argument. In no way does that underestimate what is being done with the change agent team in relation to good practice.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, one reason why the Bill is being introduced is to address variable performance across the country. Some authorities are much better than others at reducing their discharge rate and at promoting better learning. I am interested in what the noble Baroness says, but I would expect the implementation team to be able to analyse the information coming from good authorities, and to ensure that that understanding and the variable context are factors by which we can identify the common good principles from which people can learn.
To conclude, the change agents are working together with the Department of Health and we believe that the time for pilots has certainly come and gone. Now we must support best practice in the field and the work of the implementation team. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I can clarify what the change agents will do. I understand that they will disseminate best practice, which we all agree is good. The idea of pilot schemes is to learn the behavioural impact of a new scheme; in this case putting money flows in. Can the Minister say what, if anything, the change agents will do to ensure that people learn about the effects of the Bill? That is the essence of pilot-scheme learning.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the change agents and others working with them are finding out where the blockage is or where the passage is accelerating and where we need to focus our attention to prevent delays. That is their key contribution.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Minister, I am afraid that the arguments put forward by her are no more plausible the second time around than they were the first time. I believe that we have managed to tease out more flaws in the argument than were obvious before. It is precisely because the responsibilities are unchanged, that spreading best practice, the change agent team and so on are of enormous value. Of course that is within the existing framework.

1211
I am in favour of best practice, but the noble Baroness makes the point that the behavioural issues involved, where one has a penalty on local government, make the whole pattern entirely different. The Minister is saying that we need to universalise the penalty which then risks upsetting all the best practice that the change agents are trying to put into effect. That strategy appears to be extraordinarily high risk. I do not know of any organisation that would try to put in a completely unproven set of penalties in the face of some great progress, great best practice and extremely useful partnership working that has been taking place over the years. That seems to be organisational anomie, to use an anthropological term. It is absolutely extraordinary that the department thinks that is the best way to proceed.
The responsibilities in law may not have changed, but, whatever the Minister says, these penalties will alter the way that all the agencies involved will behave. I do not believe that the Minister is able to gainsay that, precisely because there has been no pilot scheme to establish whether or not that is the case. But one would suppose that the behaviour of the agencies involved ipso facto will change.
This is not to decry the skills and so on of the members of the change agent team, nor indeed the quality of the website, but we are working in uncharted waters. Piloting would send the right signals. It would show that the department really is prepared to listen and that it understands that these charges will have a profound effect on behaviour. Indeed, why else would the Government be introducing the Bill if it was not for the fact that they intended the Bill to have an effect on behaviour? Our case is that they are not piloting that change of behaviour to see whether it is beneficial or adverse to the patient.
The hour is getting late. I will not pursue the argument further. But I can guarantee that we will bring back further related issues at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Dispute resolution]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 5, line 41, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
"(1) Regulations may make provision for panels appointed by Strategic Health Authorities in England and by Local Health Boards in Wales to assist in the resolution of disputes between two or more public authorities about matters arising under or in relation to this Part.
(2) The persons forming a panel for the purpose of a particular dispute must be appointed by a Strategic Health Authority or Local Health Board from lists of persons required by the regulations to be kept by the Authority or Board.
(2A) The regulations must contain such provision as the appropriate Minister considers appropriate for ensuring that each social services authority situated (or any part of whose area is situated) in the area of a Strategic Health Authority or a Local Health Board is consulted about the persons whose names appear on any list kept by the Authority or Board for the purposes of subsection (2).
1212
(2B) The regulations may make provision about the panels, including in particular—

(a) provision for determining who is to appoint a panel in the case of a dispute between public authorities which are not all situated in the area of a single Strategic Health Authority or Local Health Board;

(b) provision specifying the descriptions of disputes which may be referred to a panel;

(c) provision about the recommendations (including recommendations relating to the payment of any amount by one party to another) which may be made by a panel in relation to any dispute referred to it."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a debate about the panels. Some noble Lords said that the provision was perceived perhaps to be unfair, giving the wrong impression to local government because it was a requirement placed upon strategic health authorities to establish those panels. We went down that route because there is no strategic equivalent in local government. If, for instance, one placed the duty on a local authority one would end up with a situation where each strategic health authority would need to set up a panel jointly with five or six local authorities.
We have discussed with local government and others what the local agencies which may bring disputes to this panel want from the system. The feedback is that they want a panel in which they have confidence. They do not want to be involved in further bureaucracy around jointly setting up panels, but they want to know that a panel will be selected from a group of men and women whose judgment they trust and who have no axe to grind in the particular case.
In Committee, I listened very carefully to the comments made. As a result I have tabled Amendment No. 50 and the consequential Amendment No. 55. Essentially, we believe that confidence in the panel will best be achieved by requiring the panel to be set up in consultation with local authorities within the strategic health authority area. We intend to make it clear in guidance that this will include allowing all parties to propose names for the list of members so that they can have confidence in that list.
The draft regulations that we published on 5th February for consultation show that we intend the panel to consist of one NHS representative, one local authority representative and an independent chair, and that for any particular dispute neither of the panel members should be drawn from the body in dispute. That is a very satisfactory outcome. It will, I believe, be perceived to be fair. By requiring consultation to take place with the relevant local authorities it will, I am sure, assure those local authorities that the panels to be established are those in which they can have full confidence. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister's comments in support of the amendment are most welcome. I thank him for taking on board the concerns expressed on the issue in Committee by noble Lords from all sides. We all agree that no dispute panel will work unless each party to a disagreement has confidence in the individuals who constitute the panel.

1213
Amendment No. 50 provides a means to ensure the sense of ownership that we want to engender among health service bodies and local authorities. However, I wonder whether it is really enough—and here I turn to my Amendments Nos. 51 to 54, which are grouped. The Minister mentioned the forthcoming guidance and said that the Government will make clear that the consultation that a strategic health authority must carry out among the relevant local authorities is designed to ensure that all parties have confidence in the dispute resolution panel. That is an exemplary aim, but I confess that I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister does not envisage building a suitable provision into the regulations to that effect.
To incorporate that into the guidance seems to me second or even third best, because guidance is not binding. As the Minister is aware, I should ideally like to see in the Bill—or, failing that, in regulations—a specific provision to the effect that the setting up of the panels should he the
joint responsibility of the strategic health authority and local authorities. In Committee, the Minister did not advance any real objection to that idea beyond saying that it would be more straightforward if we gave the responsibility to the strategic health authorities. That sounds more like expediency than anything else.
I note that when referring to the make-up of the panels the draft regulations mention one representative of the NHS and one representative of local authorities. If I could be sure what the word "representative" meant, I might feel a little more comfortable. A local authority representative does not carry the connotation of someone who has been nominated by the local authority. The right reverend Prelates in your Lordships' House often represent other faiths; but they have not been nominated by those faiths. The two are different concepts. For local authorities merely to be consulted on who is chosen—welcome though that is—does not guarantee that they will be happy with whomever is chosen.
I do not want to press the Minister unreasonably because he seems to have conceded the principle at issue, which I am sure that we all appreciate. However, it would be excellent if he could undertake to reconsider the draft regulations to see what scope there may be to provide further reassurance to local authorities in the sense that I have just described.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add the voice of these Benches both to thank the Minister for the distance that he has travelled in Amendment No. 50 and to support Amendment No. 51 and others tabled and spoken to eloquently by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
The issue is whether the Minister cannot see his way to move that extra yard. I think that we are close to something that would be acceptable. The current government amendment does not quite fit the bill, but it would not take a great deal of alteration to reach agreement on it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I always endeavour to be helpful and I am certainly prepared to
1214
reconsider the matter between now and Third Reading, although my amendment goes an awful long way to meet the point of concern.
If we consider the draft regulation, the problem with assigning a joint responsibility is that we run the risk of establishing a bureaucratic approach to determining how a strategic health authority shares responsibility with several local authorities. If they cannot sort that out and reach agreement, that would cause problems. It would be best to place the responsibility on one statutory agency—which, none the less, had to consult with relevant local authorities.
In response to the noble Earl, of course I want local authorities to have confidence in the panels. Indeed, given that they are, in a sense, advisory, it would not make sense to advance a proposal that did not command the local authorities' confidence. I also accept that, where we seek one representative of local authorities, we will want local authorities to propose names for the list of members. I readily accept that local authorities should have confidence in the names on the list. It is the same for NHS authorities. But, having said that, I will look at the matter again to see if I can give local authorities any further comfort, I understand that local authorities recognise that there has been a change in emphasis, and they welcome it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 54 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 6, line 10, leave out "established" and insert "appointed"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Regulations]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 6, line 36, at end insert "and different provision for different areas"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment intended to tidy up the drafting to pm it beyond doubt that the regulations that set the rates of payment may make different rates of payment for different areas. I referred to the matter earlier. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 57 and 61. They deal with the regulation-making powers in Clauses 8 and 12 and require the regulations to he drawn up in consultation with local government.
The Minister and I will doubtless disagree on the analysis that the Bill punishes local authorities for delayed discharges. That is certainly how it feels from the local authorities' perspective. They have, therefore, a real interest in the content of the regulations because they could affect profoundly the working practices and finances of local authorities.

1215
The Government issued draft regulations recently, only a few weeks before they had initially planned to implement them. I shall read what the Local Government Association said about those draft regulations:
"It is already clear that there are significant issues which are still clouded in uncertainty. These include defining the scope of the scheme; the giving, receiving and withdrawing of notices; the circumstances of exemption from financial liability and the process for establishing disputes panels".
In other words, practically everything about the scheme remains unclear.
This amendment only asks that local authorities are consulted. I have no doubt that they are consulted at present—whether or not they are listened to remains to be seen. But the important point is that there is no guarantee that local authorities will be consulted on any future regulations issued under the Bill, but they will have a vital interest in it.
In Committee, the Minister said that his department,
"hardly moves an inch without consulting local authorities on social care issues",
and urged local authorities to have no worries on that score. But, significantly, he did not commit to consulting local authorities on any future regulations under the Bill. Will he reconsider that position?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that we will continue to consult local government on all those matters. We have good procedures for involving local authorities in the work that we do. The Local Government Association is part of our stakeholder group for the Bill. Regular meetings take place between my department and local government. The two draft regulations that we are discussing have been the subject of public consultation. There are frequent meetings with the Local Government Association.
We have made our intentions in respect of the regulations for both parts of the Bill clear to everyone, including local government. As the Bill is implemented and we gain experience, we may wish to revise the regulations. I have no doubt that, at that time, we will again be happy to consult local government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Interpretation]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 7, line 2, at end insert—
""carer", in relation to a qualifying hospital patient, means a person who—

(a) provides or intends to provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for the patient; and

(b) is entitled to ask for an assessment under section 1 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (c. 16);"

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 7, line 10, at end insert—
"'the relevant day" has the meaning given in section (Duties of responsible NHS body following notice under section 2)(6)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Free provision of services in England]:
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Free provision of services in Wales]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 62:
Leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new Clause—
"FREE PROVISION OF SERVICES IN WALES (NO. 2)
The Assembly may by regulations made by statutory instrument require that any community care services provided by local authorities in Wales, in discharging any statutory function, may be provided free of charge to the person to whom they are provided."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friends Lady Barker and Lord Clement-Jones. I apologise for intruding upon your Lordships' deliberations so late in proceedings, but if the Bill seeks to amend the constitutional arrangements in Wales, it would be a matter of considerable concern to us.
Clause 13 would limit the regulations that may be made by statutory instrument by the Assembly to precisely the same provision as may be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 12 with regard to local authorities in England. The amendment tabled by my noble friends has the support of the coalition partnership government in the Welsh Assembly. As I understand it, the amendment has the support of the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Welsh Assembly. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will assure me that there has been some consultation with the Welsh Assembly on the issue.
The policy pursued by the Liberal Democrats in Wales is to have free care for the elderly across the board, wherever it may seem to be applicable. In the manifesto on which we are to fight the forthcoming Assembly elections, we seek an extension of current financial thresholds to £60,000, and we would like to eliminate thresholds in the case of care for the elderly. We feel that we should have the power to do that. Where the money will come from is the interesting question, and it may not be immediately available. However, the power to make such provision and to advance services for the elderly and others—community services, generally—in Wales should remain with the Welsh Assembly. For example, the Assembly, with Liberal Democrat support, has created a scheme, unique to Wales, of free six-week post-hospitalisation care, and it is important that similar provision should be made in other areas.
There is one further matter. I understand that there is shortly to be a vote in the Welsh Assembly on the provision of free personal care. That policy has executive approval and has been worked out in some

1217
detail. As I have said on many occasions, the way in which the National Assembly for Wales approaches the making of regulations is far superior to the way in which regulations are promulgated in this Parliament. Considerable consultation and thought has been put into it.
It would appear from Clause 12 as currently drafted, which binds the National Assembly for Wales through the wording of Clause 13, that the Assembly would be unable to do what it wanted and that its powers therefore will be effectively fettered. It is important that when a clause relating to Wales is included in what perhaps I may describe as an "English" Bill the constitutional implications are thought through. This is an issue which Welsh Peers and Members of Parliament frequently discuss among themselves. It forms part of the submissions being made by all parties to the commission that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is considering. I look forward, with interest, to the views that the Minister will express on this topic. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I always welcome the opportunity to debate Welsh constitutional issues with your Lordships. Those of us who have been happily debating the Health (Wales) Bill, which is going through your Lordships' House with as eager support as this Bill, will be aware of debates concerning the relationship between the National Assembly for Wales and the regulations that must be made in this House and another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned the commission being led by my noble friend Lord Richard on constitutional issues, which I believe is due to report later this year. I have no doubt that it will prove to be extremely interesting and we shall look forward to it with keen anticipation. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that at present the position is that Wales has no power to provide free personal care. In a sense, rather than taking power away from the Assembly, Clause 12 is giving a new power, but ensuring that it is consistent with the power being given in England.
Limitations have been placed on Clause 12 because it has never been intended to make personal care free. We had what I regard as a Second Reading debate in Committee on this issue. We had the Royal Commission. We considered the recommendations. We considered the recommendations of the minority report. We decided that we did not believe that the additional resource that would be required to finance free personal care would be justified. We considered that it would be much more effective to spend the money on intermediate care.
Therefore, the emphasis is on providing support for people to enable them to go back into their own homes or into community care, rather than effectively providing financial incentives for what, in many cases, would be residential care. I believe that there is a real issue about resources and priorities. It is easy to say that we believe that free personal care is good. But when it comes to the question of how resources should be spent, I believe that it is much more sensible and
1218
cost-effective to spend that resource—which, as far as England is concerned, is approximately £1 billion a year—on ensuring that as many people as possible are able to live full lives in the community. Hence, the restriction in Clause 12.
Of course, I understand the discussions that have taken place in the National Assembly for Wales on this matter. I read the comments of Members of the Assembly and the comments of Jane Hutt, the Minister responsible. In an earlier debate, she promised to approach the UK Government to fund and implement free personal care. She reported that the UK Government are presently maintaining their position that the priority for spending on long-term care should, as I have said, be on investment in improving the range and quality of services for older people.
If the Welsh Assembly wishes to introduce a policy specific to Wales, then as in other matters where primary legislation is required, the proposals should be discussed with the Wales Office, which in turn could table a Bill so that they could be treated in the same way as any other proposed legislation. That would be a matter for the Welsh Assembly. But I do not see that Clause 12 restricts the powers of the Welsh Assembly, rather that the provisions add to those powers, making them consistent with what is proposed should take place in England.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, when he says that he is making the provisions consistent with those in England, in fact he is putting a fence around the powers of the Welsh Assembly. When he says, "We have decided this or that" and, "Our priorities are this or that", he speaks as the Minister with responsibility for healthcare in England, not the person with responsibility for healthcare in Wales.
It may well be that when the National Assembly for Wales considers its priorities and how to spend across the board the limited cake allowed it by the Barnett formula, it may be that the Assembly will come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord. Members of the Assembly might then say, "We have decided this or that and these are our priorities". But essentially it is for the National Assembly for Wales to decide those priorities in the light of the resources available to it and having regard to the policies which were put forward to the people of Wales when the Assembly was elected.
The Minister has conceded that the Minister for Health in Wales has knocked on the Chancellor's door and asked for specific provision for free personal care and has been turned away. That is typical of the way in which the Chancellor deals with Welsh problems. When a Labour and Liberal Democrat partnership government comes to the door of the Chancellor, he turns them away. That is not satisfactory.
All we seek with the amendment is for Wales to be given its rightful chance to decide how to spend the money made available to it by the Chancellor. At this time of night it may not be appropriate to seek the

1219
opinion of the House, but I hope that the Minister will go back to the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the matter with his colleagues—colleagues from the same party whom his administration, through its decision making here, is letting down. I hope that when we reach Third Reading, he will be able to put a more positive view of the policy of this Government, as well as a better view of the constitutional position of Wales under devolution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Consequential amendments]:
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 9, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) In section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) (function of overview and scrutiny committees), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(2A) The overview and scrutiny committee shall agree and adopt with local NHS bodies in their area, joint local protocols as regards the discharge of hospital patients, to include—

(a) action plans to prevent and reduce delayed discharges,

(b) administrative and practical arrangements for the implementation of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003, defining the roles and responsibilities of all parties,

(c) local targets for reducing delayed discharges,

(d) joint administrative arrangements for the local implementation of the duties in sections 2 to 5 of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act,

(e) named persons responsible for co-ordinating all stages of the patient journey up to and beyond discharge, and ensuring that all necessary arrangements are put in place at the right time,

(f) joint agreement on how payments made under section 4 of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act are used to encourage an inter-disciplinary approach to services for older people, and to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in deciding how the payments are spent.

(2) An action plan under this section is a document drawn up by the relevant bodies specifying the action intended to reduce delayed discharges, and to change procedures and arrangements which may cause or contribute to the failure to comply with duties under section 3 of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for withdrawing the amendment. It would have been wholly wrong to have held a discussion on this matter without the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, present to make his contribution.
I return here to an issue that we discussed in Committee; that of local protocols. I do not wish to speak at length because many of the issues covered by the amendment are those which we have debated at all stages of the Bill. They are recurring themes covering the need for joint planning on the part of the NHS and local authorities; the need for joint understanding of how the administration of the schemes is going to work; and for there to be joint agreement on the practicalities and the respective roles of the two different organisations.
I take to heart two points made by the Minister during our debates in Committee: first, the absolute aversion to one statutory authority being in a position
1220
to tell another public authority what to do; secondly, the point made quite forcefully about not having an extra layer of bureaucracy.
The Minister will notice that the amendment is framed in a different way to the one considered in Committee. We have addressed the point by seeking to make this the responsibility of the overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities, which they are required to have under the Local Government Act 2000 and which already have a statutory role in monitoring local health trusts by virtue of the Health and Social Care Act 2001.
If it was evident that the Bill will work in practice in the way described by the Minister and be equally as hard on the NHS as it will be on local authorities, there would be no need for the amendment. But, in practice, it is difficult—sometimes impossible—for people from local authorities to argue their case with the NHS. The amendment seeks to place a positive incentive on both sides to come up with joint agreements about how money generated through the scheme will be used to encourage whole system approaches and how locally devised dispute management processes would work for the benefit of older people.
Finally, it seeks to cement joint working relationships. It does not take a huge hammer to them, as the Bill does through the mechanism of fines. It is not about trying to delay deferral and dodge the provisions of the Bill; it is about trying to make it work in a positive fashion within the existing local framework. It is in that spirit that I commend the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she is trying to meet the point I raised in Committee about the risk of creating bureaucratic layers. However, the impact of the amendment would be to impose another layer of bureaucracy on the NHS and social services. That is the last thing that either the NHS or local government requires.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of the role of an overview and scrutiny committee. Those bodies are there to scrutinise what is happening on health issues. They are not there to be executive bodies—which they would become if the amendment were accepted. The amendment states:
"The overview and scrutiny committee shall agree and adopt with local NHS bodies in their area, joint local protocols as regards the discharge of hospital patients".
It is not the role of overview and scrutiny committees to agree and adopt with local NHS bodies joint protocols. That is the responsibility of the local authority and the NHS bodies. Of course I would encourage as much joint agreement as possible, but it is not the role of the overview and scrutiny committees to enter into such arrangements. Of course overview and scrutiny committees may well wish to inquire from time to time into the arrangements for delayed discharge and the performance of their own local authorities and relevant NHS bodies. I should very much welcome that. I believe that the local authorities' overview and scrutiny committees would have

1221
valuable insights to offer into how the system was running. But it is one thing to scrutinise; it is quite another to take executive decisions. On that ground, I strongly resist the amendment.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, perhaps I should have anticipated the Minister's reply. He may be correct that the locus for planning should be a partnership board. It does, however, mean that the role of the formal body within a local authority—the overview and scrutiny committee—will necessarily be reactive. I am not sure that that is the foundation on which to build the partnerships which the noble Lord has said throughout our debates on the Bill should be in place in order to make this work.
It is important to bear in mind recent announcements such as that made within the past month that there is no longer a requirement for local authority areas to have a community care plan, although health improvement plans are still required.
I continue to disagree with the Minister that his approach is right. I continue to think that his is a negative and destructive approach. I am searching, as he can see, for ways in which to build a positive approach to planning these matters at local level. This may not be the precise amendment to achieve that. I shall take it away and consider it. However, I shall continue to try to find a positive way to build those local arrangements which we agree are necessary, but we wholly disagree on the way to find them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 67:
After Clause I7, insert the following new clause—
"DURATION
(1) Subject to subsection (2), Part 1 of this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of five years beginning with the date on which it comes into force.
(2) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is necessary for social services authorities to continue making payments in cases where the discharge of patients is delayed for reasons relating to the provision of community care services or services for carers, he may make an order providing that Part I of this Act shall continue in force for a further five years.
(3) An order may not be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of that order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, after all our debates today, I am sure that it will not surprise the Minister that I move this amendment with a considerable measure of enthusiasm.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said a few minutes ago, this is a Bill which brings us into experimental territory. I and other noble Lords have flagged up our concerns on it throughout these debates. We believe that the Bill will not work: it will militate against patient choice; it will distort priorities, to the detriment of elderly patients in the community; it will create all kinds of perverse incentives, some of which may make the problem of discharges worse, not
1222
better; and we believe that it will establish a confrontational culture between trusts and social services instead of a creative and collaborative one.
The idea of fining social services for failing to free up blocked beds originated in Sweden. But if we look at what happened there, we see that Sweden, even after operating the scheme for a number of years, still has a higher incidence of delayed discharges in both relative and absolute terms than we do in the UK.
The Government should acknowledge that there is a risk of this measure not working as they predict. As we have said on several occasions, it is the unintended consequences that are often not foreseen. If the Bill were to succeed in freeing up substantial numbers of acute beds without causing unmanageable problems in the community; if it succeeds in encouraging investment into new care homes and in preventive and community care facilities; if patients by and large receive the care that they want and need when they want and need it, then no one will be happier to eat his words than I. But I think that any experiment should have a finite life. After that, it should be subject to a thorough appraisal to see how well or how badly it has worked. That should be a fundamental principle of just about all legislation but never more so, I suggest, than in this case.
If we believe, as I think the Government do, that we should not regulate unnecessarily, that should certainly apply to a Bill which creates burdens for the public sector and incurs unproductive costs. That is why Amendment No. 67 has been tabled. If the Bill has to be passed into law, we should, at the outset, grant it a life of five years in order to prove its worth. If, at the end of that time, Ministers are satisfied that it is necessary, all things considered, to maintain the system of financial incentives in place, well and good. Let them come to Parliament with an affirmative resolution and we will debate it in the normal way.
That is all I ask—it is not so very much. The new clause ought, by rights, to commend itself to Ministers. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. If the Government will not accept pilot schemes to see whether the mechanisms in the Bill will work and will be productive rather than counter-productive, the logic of the noble Earl's comments is irrefutable. Since the Government do not have a clue whether the Bill will work, it seems that a review after five years is the right way to go.
If the Government accept a five-year span for the Bill, they do not have to put it to the test now. As it happens, almost every Member on every Bench in this House believes that if the Bill were a plane it would crash, and in fairly short order. However, by accepting the noble Earl's very sensible amendment, the Government could sidestep that matter altogether, with very attractive consequences.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says that the Government

1223
do not have a clue whether the Bill will work. I really must say that that is quite unwarranted. We would hardly bring a Bill of such seriousness before your Lordships' House if we were not confident that it put in place the right incentives to enable delayed discharges to become a problem of the past.
We must think about those thousands of people every day who are stuck, unnecessarily, in hospital wards, risking the dangers of institutionalisation, infection and of losing their independence. That is very often down to poor practice between statutory agencies. We hear a lot from the opposite Benches about the problems of these poor statutory agencies who are unable to get their act together. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that unless we get to grips with the situation, many thousands of people over the years ahead will still be suffering from the seeming inability of statutory agencies to perform effectively and in the public interest. That is why we are bringing the Bill before your Lordships' House.
I believe that the Bill is even-handed and has the right incentives to make the system work effectively. I have no doubt that once it is introduced, we will see dramatic improvements in the way in which individuals are assessed and community services are provided, and a reduction in the number of delayed discharges.
I know that noble Lords opposite do not welcome the Bill, but that does not justify adding what is generally known as a sunset clause to it. Such clauses are generally used only in Acts passed because of national emergencies, such as the Import, Export and Custom Powers ( Defence) Act 1939—I have a list—or in Acts that impinge on individual civil liberties, such as the Terrorism Act 2000. As a resident of Birmingham, I am glad to see the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 on the list. Sunset clauses are not generally used in other legislation and it is not justified in this case.
1224
I am confident that this is a good Bill. I am convinced that it will lead to better performance in the health service and local government. It deserves to be passed unfettered by a condition such as a sunset clause.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have no difficulty with the Government's aim. We all acknowledge that there is a problem of delayed discharges and agree that we need to get a grip on the situation.
However, the direction of travel since the Government came to office in 1997 has been towards partnership working. I applaud that. They have introduced some innovative and imaginative measures, such as the duty of partnership between the NHS and local government and the ability to pool budgets. Perhaps above all they have encouraged a culture of partnership that is genuinely bearing fruit in a number of ways. None of us could fail to welcome that. We have only to look at the delayed discharge figures for the third quarter of 2002, which were published last week, to see that the trend is downward.
I therefore find it all the more surprising that the Bill moves in the diametrically opposite direction to the measures that I have just cited. The Government have nothing to be afraid of in our sunset clause. If the Bill works as they believe it will, it will be easy to demonstrate that fact to Parliament. I do not suppose that they would receive much opposition in doing so. If the Bill fails to work, there is no case for keeping it on the statute book. I fear that the damage it will do will be self-evident and there will be a general call to scrap it.
I am not sure why the Government are so reluctant to accept a sunset clause. Nevertheless, it being past sunset today, I do not propose to press the amendment. I have listened with care and appreciation to everything that the Minister has said today. I shall read what he has said between now and next week. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
House adjourned at nine minutes past ten o'clock.

  UN Peacekeeping Personnel
  UN Peacekeeping Personnel
  Afghanistan: Dasht-e-Leili
  Afghanistan: Dasht-e-Leili
  Mr Derek Bond: Detention in South Africa
  Mr Derek Bond: Detention in South Africa
  Police Officers above the Rank of Inspector Currently Suspended
  Police Officers above the Rank of Inspector Currently Suspended
  Government IT Systems: Security
  Government IT Systems: Security
  Key Commercial IT Systems: Security
  Key Commercial IT Systems: Security
  Trafficking Victims
  Trafficking Victims
  National Asylum Support Service
  National Asylum Support Service
  Judiciary: Criticism by Ministers of Court Decisions
  Judiciary: Criticism by Ministers of Court Decisions
  Civil Court Cases: Fees
  Civil Court Cases: Fees
  Legal Aid: Residents of the Irish Republic
  Legal Aid: Residents of the Irish Republic
  West Bank "Security Fence"
  West Bank "Security Fence"
  Protection of Cultural Property: Hague Convention
  Protection of Cultural Property: Hague Convention
  Iraq: Attitude of Irish Republic
  Iraq: Attitude of Irish Republic
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Tibet
  Tibet
  Slug Pellets: Song Thrush Population
  Slug Pellets: Song Thrush Population
  Coal-fired Generation Plant
  Coal-fired Generation Plant
  Capita: DIES Contracts
  Capita: DIES Contracts
  Children with Disabilities and SEN
  Children with Disabilities and SEN
  Sir William Stubbs: Payment
  Sir William Stubbs: Payment
  Stagetext
  Stagetext
  English Heritage
  English Heritage
  Pharmacy Services
  Pharmacy Services
  NHS Workforce
  NHS Workforce
  NHS: Leaving Rates
  NHS: Leaving Rates
  NHS: Minority Ethnic Nurses
  NHS: Minority Ethnic Nurses
  NHS: Vital Connection
  NHS: Vital Connection
  NHS Management Costs
  NHS Management Costs
  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999
  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999
  NHS Charges
  NHS Charges
  Northern Ireland Multi-Party Talks, 19 December 2002
  Northern Ireland Multi-Party Talks, 19 December 2002
  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service
  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Lisburn-Antrim Railway Line
  Lisburn-Antrim Railway Line
  Northern Ireland: Traffic Accidents
  Northern Ireland: Traffic Accidents
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  Rail Industry
  Rail Industry