Sitting of 19 March 2003

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

  TRANSAS GROUP BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 26 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Drugs
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What recent assessment he has made of measures to create effective local anti-drugs partnerships in Wales. [102968]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): Tackling the problem that drug misuse causes is an issue that is extremely important to me and to the Government. I am aware that the drug and alcohol action teams currently working in Wales will be integrated into the 22 Welsh community safety partnerships. We believe that that is a progressive way forward.
    Mr. Bryant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he will be aware that it is no exaggeration to say that drugs are systematically undermining the social fabric of many valleys communities, especially former mining communities. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also agree that the answer to the problem must lie in establishing strong local partnerships between all the agencies involved. In my constituency, however, Rhondda Cynon Taff—which is meant to take the lead in establishing the new anti-drugs partnership—has played no part in making sure that we have a strong approach to deal with the issue. Is that because of political failure, and will my hon. Friend make sure that RCT gets its act together soon?
    Mr. Touhig: I am aware that there have been problems with the operation of crime and disorder partnerships in Wales. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) raised the matter in a Westminster Hall debate a little while ago. I can tell my hon. Friend that £5 million has been
    922
    provided since 2001 to the communities against drugs initiatives to support projects across Wales to tackle drug-related crime, and to disrupt the drug markets. I will, of course, ensure that my hon. Friend's comments about his local partnership are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Home Office initiative Operation Tarian is proving a great success in the south Wales valleys. However, will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State and perhaps liaise with the Home Office about the fact that the Home Office is contributing only £50,000 to that very important initiative? Unfortunately, that means that £3.2 million must be drawn down from other National Assembly budgets, including rehabilitation budgets. We already know that there is a huge waiting list in Wales for those resources. In some south Wales valleys, the typical waiting time is 18 months. With the best will in the world, I ask the Minister to liaise with the Home Office about bringing in some more money. Otherwise, it seems to me to be almost self-defeating.
    Mr. Touhig: I note what the hon. Gentleman said about Operation Tarian. It is an important initiative. It was started by police authorities in south Wales, and it is supported by colleagues in the Assembly, and by funding from the Home Office. Indeed, I was involved in discussions with colleagues when the operation was set up. The House may not be aware that South Wales police were involved in a large operation last week. Heroin, crack cocaine, cannabis and ecstasy were seized, and 83 people were arrested. Operation Tarian is making an important contribution to the intelligence gathering that is needed to combat the problem. However, I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I shall make sure that the appropriate Departments are made aware of it.
    Ian Lucas: I recently held talks with Wrexham magistrates, at which I learned that there has been a very positive response to the imposition of drug treatment and testing orders. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for people to understand that substantial funding is necessary to safeguard the orders and make them effective? Will not any suggestion that funding might be reduced undermine one of the ways that we are beginning to get to grips with the scourge of drugs in our community?
    Mr. Touhig: I agree with my hon. Friend. Substance abuse is not a simple problem. We must do everything that we can to break the cycle of drug misuse and criminal activity, but we must concentrate on three other initiatives—education, to prevent drug and substance misuse; treatment, including treatment for people who commit crime; and rehabilitation, to break the cycle. This year, £3 million has been allocated to drug and alcohol initiatives in Wales to enable 1,000 more people to access community detox facilities. We will need to expand that initiative, and I believe that my colleagues in the Assembly are working with the Home Office with that objective in mind.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Drugs are a bigger menace in Wales today than they were just five years

    923
    ago. More people are hooked and dying, and the treatment for those who need it is totally inadequate. So what did the Government do? They demoted the drugs tsar, and then abolished the post. They removed all targets for reducing the number of people taking hard and soft drugs, and then reclassified cannabis from a class B drug to a class C drug. They have left the police and public confused about the law on the use of drugs. Even the annual drugs report has not been published since 2001. Is not the problem the fact that the Government do not have a strategy for dealing with drug abuse? Until they get one, more young people are going to get hooked, and to die. Is not it time that the Government got a proper strategy for drug abuse?
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Government have provided £27 million of support for local initiatives across Wales. My colleagues in the Assembly provided a further £18 million over the next three years for initiatives, and the new community partnerships will work along those lines.
    It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to make further demands when his party is committed to a 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure. What would that do for tackling the drug problem in Wales? His colleagues will have to give that answer to the people of Wales on 1 May, when once again they will be rejected.

    Severnside Airport
    Mr. Huw Edwards: What recent representations he has received concerning a proposed Severnside Airport. [102969]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): I have met representatives of the Severnside consortium, who briefed me on their proposals.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend recall receiving from me representations that show that there is considerable opposition to the current proposals for Severnside airport on a man-made island in the Severn estuary? There is opposition from Monmouthshire county council and no support from the 18 airlines, including British Airways, that I have contacted, and I found majority opposition from the residents of Portskewett and Sudbrook in my constituency when I undertook a full household survey. Will my right hon. Friend study those representations and recommend to the Department of Transport that the proposal be rejected?
    Peter Hain: I will certainly study those views. I am well aware of the concerns of residents in his local area, not least because he brought them to my attention a few weeks ago. In the consultation exercise that is being carried out by the Department of Transport—a White Paper will follow later this year—full account will be taken of environmental, safety and economic issues, as well as of the views of local residents. The Severnside consortium has an ambitious plan to relocate traffic
    924
    from the south-east of England to that area, but the views of local residents must of course be taken into account.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Does the Secretary of State still support the concept of a regional air service with Cardiff as its hub?
    Peter Hain: Yes, I do. Regional airports already play a vital role in Wales and should play an even more vital role right across Wales, from north to south and from east to west. There is great potential for increasing air traffic in that way.
    Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that international airports are good servants but atrocious neighbours? Would it not be right to use the Severn estuary, with its almost unique quality of having the second highest rise and fall of tide in the world, to generate electricity in a clean, benign and nonpolluting way?
    Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a keen enthusiast for renewable energy. The Severn estuary barrage was one of the issues that we examined during our consideration of the energy White Paper. It is hugely expensive, but there are opportunities for utilising tidal and wave power, and the Welsh coast and the Severn estuary may represent such an opportunity.

    Local Government Finance
    Simon Hughes: What discussions he has had in March on the effects of proposed council tax increases in Wales in April 2003. [102970]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I have discussions with many people and organisations about matters affecting Wales.
    Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give us the latest information on the likely average increase in council tax in Wales in the current year? Does he agree that people in Wales particularly resent high increases if they feel that decisions are largely taken in Whitehall and the Wales Office, not by their local councils? Would he be willing to allow the Welsh Assembly to have power over the way in which local government finance is raised in Wales, and will he consider local income tax as a much fairer alternative?
    Mr. Touhig: That is a very interesting proposition. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is hoping to stand for the office of Mayor of London. As he campaigns on this issue, he will no doubt explain to the people of London why the Lib Dem council in Southwark, supported by the Tories, has hiked the council tax by 9 per cent. He should compare that with an average council tax rise in Wales of 8 per cent. The message is simple—Lib Dem and Tory councils cost more: vote Labour on 1 May.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Has the Welsh Assembly had time to reflect on its decision to

    925
    delay council elections for one year? In future, might it decide to allow council elections to concur with Assembly elections, as in Scotland? That might have a beneficial effect on council tax rises.
    Mr. Touhig: I am not sure that I want to be led down that road. When the Assembly decided to delay the next council elections, there were extensive discussions among all parties. A decision was taken and I do not believe that the Assembly has any intention of changing the decision at this time.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: In 1997, people living in a band D house in Merthyr Tydfil paid £569 in council tax. When they receive their council tax bills in just a couple of weeks' time, they will be paying £1,003. Does the Minister think that a reasonable increase?
    Mr. Touhig: Some of us have longer memories than others. In the last two years of the Tory Government, council tax band D in Wales went up by 32 per cent. This year—thanks to the support of this Labour Government, working in partnership with the Labour Assembly—councils have received an extra 9 per cent. in support for public services. As I said earlier, the average council tax rise in Wales is 8 per cent. this year. One council, of course, has imposed a rise of well above that: Conservative-run Vale of Glamorgan, backed and kept in power by the nationalists, is putting up its council tax by 10 per cent. That is a clear message to the people of the Vale of Glamorgan come 1 May.
    Mr. Evans: I asked whether it was a reasonable increase; I infer from his answer that the Minister thinks it is. In Blaenau Gwent, for instance, council tax has gone up by 78 per cent. since 1997. This year, people there face an 11 per cent. increase in their council tax, which will go up to £975. In Neath, the constituency of the Secretary of State for Wales, the increase since 1997 has been 56 per cent. In Cardiff, people face a rise of 12 per cent. this year, which is four times the rate of inflation. How are people on fixed incomes supposed to pay those huge rises? Do they cut down on food, stop going out or turn the heating off? Those are real questions for people. What advice would the Minister give them when they open their council tax bills in just a few weeks' time?
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman could at least do us the courtesy of getting his figures right. The figures are 9 per cent. and 11 per cent. for Blaenau Gwent and Cardiff.
    What would public services in Wales be like if they were subject to a 20 per cent. cut? Let me tell the House what they would be like. We would have one in five nurses taken out; one in five hospital wards closed; one in five teachers got rid of; one in five police officers got rid of; £155 million worth of cuts in every—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister will not mention the election in Wales any more. He has used up his ration.

    Rail Services
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: What recent discussions he has had with National Assembly Secretaries concerning rail services in Wales. [102971]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): Regular ones, to ensure improvements are made.
    Mrs. Lawrence: I welcome the £2.5 million that the Assembly has allocated to improve railway stations in Wales, but does the Secretary of State accept that if we want to improve rail services we will have to attack the Reading blockage, the signalling problems at Slough and the flooding in the Chipping Sodbury tunnel? Those factors are the cause of many of the delays. Will the Secretary of State discuss this issue with his Westminster colleagues and press for improvements? What we need is partnership, and not the drawbridge mentality of the nationalists.
    Peter Hain: I could not agree more. These issues are being addressed through the record investment that is going into improving our railways. That includes investment in the Paddington to south-west Wales line. We are doubling our investment in rail infrastructure and rail services over the coming two years. If we got a Conservative Government back, they would cut rail investment by 20 per cent.
    Hywel Williams: The very active and positive Cambrian coast railway liaison conference is made up of members from all parties and from none. They have been working hard but are continually disappointed that the small amount of investment needed to improve services on the Cambrian coast is withheld. Will the Secretary of State assure us that those services will be improved, as the cross-party Cambrian line support group has requested so often?
    Peter Hain: We are certainly anxious to see further support and investment to improve rail services right across Wales, including the Cambrian service. We shall look at that. However, if nationalist policies were pursued and Wales was made independent, Wales would be bankrupt and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Albert Owen: The Secretary of State will be aware of the fact that Virgin Trains reneged on its proposal to run seven through trains from Holyhead to London from September of next year. Will he agree to meet a delegation of business men and stakeholders from my constituency so that we can put pressure on Virgin Trains to reconsider that decision, which will have a serious impact on tourism and the economy of my area?
    Peter Hain: I shall be happy to meet that delegation, because I know of my hon. Friend's concern to improve rail services. Indeed, the people of Holyhead and people throughout Anglesey deserve improved rail services,

    927
    which is what they will get under the Labour Government. I shall be happy to take up my hon. Friend's request.
    Lembit Öpik: While the Minister is being generous, and given the unsatisfactory service north to south and east to west in mid-Wales, will he be willing to accept representations from rail user groups about what might be done to improve the frequency and reliability of the service? Will he also give us an assurance that the Government have no plans for a real-terms cut to the subsidy for rail services in that area?
    Peter Hain: We are increasing rail investment by record amounts. I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about rail services in that area, and the Strategic Rail Authority is proposing additional services for the heart of Wales line, which will improve services in mid-Wales. I do not know how many other requests to meet delegations on rail services I shall get, but I shall be happy to receive the hon. Gentleman's.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Given that sometimes it is a wonder that we get to London—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much conversation.
    Mr. Griffiths: Sometimes it is a wonder that regular rail users get to London on a Monday or get home on a Thursday. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State call in the SRA, Railtrack and all the train operators to thrash out a strategy to get rid of all the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) referred to earlier?
    Peter Hain: As a regular user of that service, I am well aware of the difficulties and how often delays occur. However, we are dealing with record under-investment over nearly 20 years of Conservative rule, which will take time to turn around. Investment in our rail services is being doubled over the next few years. That will continue for the rest of the decade and we shall see improvements on the London to south-west Wales line that will benefit my hon. Friend and me.

    Terrorism
    Mr. David Heath: What discussions he has had with (a) the National Assembly for Wales and (b) local authorities in Wales on contingency planning for a terrorist attack on nuclear installations in the Bristol channel. [102972]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The lead responsibility for counteracting terrorism lies with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, security at civil nuclear facilities is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. The UK's civil nuclear sites apply stringent security measures, regulated by the DTI's Office for Civil Nuclear Security.
    928
    Both the Wales Office and the Assembly are involved in national arrangements for dealing with the effects of any civil emergency. Within Wales the Assembly works jointly with local authorities to maintain a state of preparedness.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that 15 years ago, when we were fighting proposals for the Hinkley C pressurised water reactor, we were told that the chances of an aircraft hitting a nuclear installation were so negligible as to be irrelevant? Few people would take that view now, so is the Minister satisfied with the contingency arrangements for nuclear installations, which, on Severnside, are the most concentrated in the country? Is he satisfied with the resources for the National Radiological Protection Board and is he sure that the emergency services on both sides of the Bristol channel are able to cope with a catastrophic emergency?
    Mr. Touhig: The companies operating civil nuclear installations have always been required to have in place robust, detailed and well-rehearsed plans to respond to any radiological release. The plans involve emergency services and local authorities in the surrounding area and are regulated by the nuclear industry's inspectors, as the hon. Gentleman is probably aware. The arrangements were significantly enhanced following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Contingency plans were tested against the threat posed by a major incident in a live exercise at Bradwell on 10 May last year. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must always continue to maintain very high vigilance and a very high regard for those installations and ensure that they are properly cared for and properly protected, and I believe that we are doing the right thing in that respect.
    Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that the best long-term defence against terrorist attacks on nuclear installations is to rid Britain of its civil and military nuclear roles? What can we learn from the disaster at Chernobyl, as a result of which not only that community but even farms throughout Wales were devastated?
    Mr. Touhig: No, I do not agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes.
    Mr. James Gray: Until yesterday, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was responsible for homeland defence. Who is now in charge of that?
    Mr. Touhig: Those matters are, of course, ultimately the responsibility of the Home Secretary.

    Climate Change Levy
    Andrew Selous: What recent representations he has received about the effects of the climate change levy on manufacturing industry in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations from individual companies and groups representing business, including the CBI.
    Andrew Selous: Will the Minister confirm that, on its introduction, the Treasury said that the climate change levy would be broadly neutral for business, that manufacturing has, in fact, suffered a £90 million net tax hit, that Wales is particularly hard hit with 28 per cent. of its gross domestic product dependent on manufacturing and, furthermore, that the Engineering Employers Federation's counter-proposals would lead to greater reductions in energy use and a lower cost to business in Wales and elsewhere? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy.
    Mr. Touhig: The Government are committed to making Britain one of the most competitive business environments in the world. That has been demonstrated by the fact that our tax burden on business and industry is the lowest of all our major competitors, but we recognise, too, that business and industry must make a contribution to improve and protect our environment. I mentioned in my initial answer to the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met representatives of the CBI. The director of the CBI in Wales fully understands the Government's position; nevertheless, my right hon. Friend took on board the points made by the director with regard to the climate change levy and, as a result, he is in discussion with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the climate change levy has been a problem for Corus? He will be acutely conscious, as I am, of the difficulties currently facing Corus. Will he join me in praising the achievements and spirit of the whole work force at Llanwern? Will he undertake to examine urgently, with colleagues in Wales and Whitehall, whether any aspect of public policy unnecessarily disadvantages Corus in doing its business? If he identifies one, will he act swiftly to deal with it?
    Mr. Touhig: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has been involved in detailed discussions with the management of Corus and other Ministers about the company's concerns. He carried on that job of work from the former Secretary of State for Wales, who also played an important part in helping to secure a package when Corus announced its job losses. The Government will work in partnership with colleagues in the Assembly and with Corus in every way possible to avoid any further job losses at Llanwern.
    Adam Price: Will the Minister specifically consider offering further concessions to the steel industry in relation to the climate change levy and take into account the industry's concerns about the effect of the landfill tax? Can he confirm that the UK Government have sought approval from the Commission for emergency state aid on a contingency basis, which the Dutch Government have already done?
    Mr. Touhig: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have made available £30 million a year in incentives for organisations that volunteer to take part in the UK emissions trading scheme. We are working with the industry and colleagues in the European Union to ensure that we are doing the right thing and that that does not impact adversely on business and industry in Wales. I think that we are doing a good job in that respect.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. David Rendel: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Rendel: Now that it seems inevitable that, sadly, there will be immense destruction in Iraq over the next few weeks, and given that the Select Committee on International Development reported earlier this year that less than half the necessary funds for the reconstruction of Afghanistan had been contributed, can the Prime Minister assure the House that he, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development will ensure that sufficient funds for the reconstruction of Iraq are provided swiftly?
    The Prime Minister: First, I should say to the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the reconstruction programme post conflict in Iraq is not, in fact, primarily to do with the consequences of any military conflict, but is actually to do with reconstructing the country after the years of Saddam Hussein and his rule. Secondly, I would say to him that, yes, we will ensure that the funds are available—indeed, funds have already been earmarked for the purpose—and the Secretary of State for International Development, the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury are doing all that they can to make sure that we co-ordinate with American allies and also with other UN partners to ensure that the funds are available and also that the programme is available, so that in the post-conflict situation in Iraq the people of Iraq are given the future that they need.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Prime Minister note that, at the present time in the Gulf, we have 37 Army chaplains, 12 RAF chaplains and 19 to 20 Royal Navy chaplains? Does that not reflect the great support of the churches for our armed services at this time? Should that not be reflected not only in this House, but in the country?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend, because of his special responsibilities and interests in this matter, is deeply knowledgeable about the armed forces chaplains. They do an excellent job for our armed forces. At this moment in particular, the thoughts of the

    931
    whole House, no matter what position we take on Iraq and the conflict, will be with our armed forces wishing them well and wishing them safety.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Following last night's vote, does the Prime Minister agree that British forces serving in the Gulf should know that, irrespective of how individual MPs or even parties voted, the whole House of Commons backs them and wishes them Godspeed and a safe return?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will endorse those sentiments. Whatever positions people have taken—and we understand the reasons for that—I know that everyone in this House wishes our armed forces well, wishes that, if there is conflict, it will be over as quickly and as successfully as possible and would like to pay tribute to their dedication and commitment on behalf of this country.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: As Saddam Hussein has rejected every single offer to disarm or leave the country, is it now a reality that the removal of Saddam Hussein has become an explicit war aim?
    The Prime Minister: It is the case that if the only means of achieving the disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction is the removal of the regime, then the removal of the regime of course has to be our objective. It is important that we realise that we have come to this position because we have given every opportunity for Saddam voluntarily to disarm, but the will not only of this country but of the United Nations now has to be upheld.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Given the Prime Minister's answer, the whole House also will have heard the statement by President Bush that any Iraqi commander who commits a war crime will be prosecuted. Will he confirm that that dictum goes right to the top and, despite some reports of immunity, includes Saddam Hussein himself?
    The Prime Minister: There was a possibility, if Saddam Hussein was prepared to leave voluntarily, quit Iraq and spare his people the conflict, that we could have ensured that that happened. The circumstances in relation to any immunity might then have been different, but it is reasonably clear, I think, that that will not happen. I think that it is very important that those in senior positions of responsibility in Saddam Hussein's regime realise that they will be held accountable for what they have done.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: When I asked the Prime Minister in the past about his plans for post-conflict Iraq, he was, quite legitimately and understandably, reluctant to give full answers because he would not have wanted to give the impression that conflict was inevitable. Now that war is looming and Saddam Hussein's days are clearly numbered, will he tell us what plans there are to put in place a civilian representative Government in Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: We are in discussion now with not just the United States, but other allies and the
    932
    United Nations. We want to ensure that any post-conflict authority in Iraq is endorsed and authorised by a new United Nations resolution, and I think that that will be an important part of bringing the international community back together again.
    We have set out a vision statement for Iraq and the Iraqi people, and it might help if I highlight one or two of its aspects. First, we will support the Iraqi people in their desire for
    "a unified Iraq within its current borders",
    and we will protect their territorial integrity. Secondly, we will protect their wealth, and I repeat again that any money from Iraqi oil will go into a UN-administered trust fund for the benefit of the Iraqi people. There should be freedom in
    "an Iraq which respects fundamental human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the dignity of family life",
    and there should be freedom from the fear of arbitrary arrest. There should also be an
    "Iraq respecting the rule of law, whose government reflects the diversity and choice of its population",
    and who help to rebuild Iraq, for the Iraqi people, on the basis of unifying the Iraqi people. Those principles of peace, prosperity, freedom and good government will go some way toward showing that if there is a conflict and Saddam Hussein is removed, the future for the Iraqi people will be brighter and better as a result.
    Mr. Marsha Singh: Now that the Prime Minister has received a mandate for war, will he take this opportunity to reassure the world that it is a war against Saddam Hussein, and not the Iraqi people and Muslims? Will he also reassure our Muslim communities that he will not allow them to be scapegoats for anything that might happen in the Gulf?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said because I know that it will be heard and considered closely by people in this country and abroad. Let me make it quite clear that our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people because the Iraqi people are the principal victims of Saddam Hussein. Our quarrel is with Saddam. He is the person who has been responsible for killing thousands—indeed, hundreds of thousands—of Muslim people both in his wars and through his internal repression. I know that the vast majority of the Muslim community in this country are good, law-abiding people who contribute an immense amount to our country, and we are proud of our country as a multicultural and multiracial society.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: As, of course, the whole House will associate itself with the expressions of support for our armed forces and their families at home, may I ask the Prime Minister about the related issue arising from the past few days: the middle east road map? What is the status of that in the eyes of the British Government, given that the Israelis seem to feel that it can be altered as it progresses?
    The Prime Minister: Our commitment is total to the middle east peace process and to the road map being published. That is the clear commitment that has been

    933
    given not only on our behalf, but on behalf of the President of the United States. Of course, both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government can make their comments, but the road map is not simply a set of principles, but a detailed process for reaching the point of establishing a viable Palestinian state and an Israel that is confident of its security and recognised by all its neighbours. We are totally committed to ensuring that the road map is fulfilled.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister also reassure the House that he will maintain pressure, as he has already, on the American Administration to ensure that they continue to back the momentum for that process?
    The Prime Minister: It is worth quoting what the President of the United States said last Friday on that subject because it indicates the degree of commitment that he has given. He said:
    "The government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, must take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable and credible Palestinian state, and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement."
    He went on to say:
    "We expect … a Palestinian Prime Minister will be confirmed soon. Immediately upon confirmation, the road map for peace will be given to the Palestinians and the Israelis."
    He then said:
    "America is committed, and I am personally committed, to implementing our road map toward peace."
    That is his commitment and my commitment, and we will work hard to ensure that it is delivered.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: It is widely reported in today's newspapers that the United States intends to use a new bomb that will melt the Iraqi communications systems. Will this bomb also melt the equipment that is used in hospitals and that runs the water and electricity supplies in Baghdad? Will the Prime Minister assure us that it does not melt people?
    The Prime Minister: In any military conflict, we will operate in accordance with international law. Any weapons or munitions that are used will be in accordance with international law. I assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything that we can to minimise civilian casualties and, indeed, to maximise the possibilities of a swift and successful conclusion to any conflict.
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: While our thoughts and prayers are with our brave servicemen in the Gulf, will the Prime Minister reflect on one thing? Given the disgraceful and spineless attitude of the French Government, is it not highly dangerous and irresponsible to contemplate tying British defences into a European common defence and security policy?
    The Prime Minister: If that was a bid for the Foreign Office badge of diplomacy, it somewhat failed. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we make sure that we participate fully in any debates about European defence. The purpose of our participation is to make sure that European defence is fully compatible with our membership of NATO. I appreciate that there
    934
    is a disagreement between us and the Opposition, but I genuinely believe that the worst thing that we could do in any debate about European defence would be to leave the chair empty. If I can put it more diplomatically than the hon. Gentleman, those who might oppose our vision of how European defence matures over years would then be strengthened.
    Mr. Martin Caton: International humanitarian law prohibits military attack that fails to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants or that disproportionately impacts on civilians. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, in the war on Iraq that the House sanctioned last night, we will not be employing cluster bombs and that electricity, transport and water infrastructure will not be targeted?
    The Prime Minister: I simply say in relation to any weapons or munitions that we use that we will use only those that are in accordance with international law and with the Geneva convention. That is the responsibility of the Government and is the commitment of this Government and has been of other British Governments in the past. We will do everything that we can to minimise civilian casualties. The reason why, in respect of any military action that we take, we get legal advice not merely on the military action itself but on the targeting is to make sure that that happens. Of course, I understand that, if there is conflict, there will be civilian casualties. That, I am afraid, is in the nature of any conflict, but we will do our best to minimise them. However, I point out to my hon. Friend that civilian casualties in Iraq are occurring every day as a result of the rule of Saddam Hussein. He will be responsible for many, many more deaths even in one year than we will be in any conflict.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Can the Prime Minister tell the House anything of his plans in terms of the state of readiness for homeland defence? What state of a war footing is the United Kingdom on in the now more likely event of international terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: We have made detailed preparations for the possibility of any terrorist attack, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. We have also spent several hundred million pounds ensuring that we have both the equipment and the planning in place. I will not go into the details of each part of that, but I assure him that we are well aware of the risk that this country—indeed, all countries—suffers and faces at the moment. We are doing everything that we can to prepare against it.
    Chris Ruane: The UK, along with dozens of other nations, stood shoulder to shoulder with the US over Afghanistan and now Iraq. That loyalty has been rewarded by the Bush Administration with the imposition of steel tariffs, the withdrawal from test ban treaties, the introduction of farm subsidies in America, and contempt for the International Criminal Court. The President rubbished and reneged on the Kyoto and Johannesburg treaties, and scuppered my right hon. Friend's attempts to open dialogue with the Palestinians in January. Can my right

    935
    hon. Friend use his now legendary powers of persuasion to convince President Bush to develop a world vision worthy of his great nation?
    The Prime Minister: I gather from my hon. Friend's remarks that he is not a total fan of President Bush. There are important things that President Bush has agreed to, and it is as well to balance my hon. Friend's remarks with those. First, President Bush took the case of Iraq to the United Nations. He was asked to do so and did so, and he agreed resolution 1441. I say and say again that it was not he who walked away from that deal.
    Secondly, in respect of the middle east peace process, my hon. Friend will have heard the words that I spoke a moment or two ago, quoting President Bush and his commitment to that. He is the first American President to commit himself to the two-state solution of a state of Israel and a viable Palestinian state.
    We are working closely on a new UN resolution in relation to reconstruction.
    There are disagreements about trade, but those are familiar disagreements, not merely with the present American Administration, but with previous American Administrations. A couple of years ago, under the previous Administration of a Democrat President, I spent a large part of my time dealing with the issue of cashmere sweaters. Those things happen, and America is not the only country with which we have the odd trade disagreement. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. It is important that we use our influence to develop that global agenda, and I believe that we can do so.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the defeat of the Government's asylum legislation in the Court of Appeal yesterday make the achievement of the Prime Minister's target of halving asylum applications by September more or less likely?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to say that because we won on the legal principle, that is not affected.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is the only person who can claim defeat in the Court of Appeal as a triumph. The asylum organisations have all said that the policy is now in tatters. Surely this is the latest setback for a Government who introduced vouchers, then scrapped them; scrapped the white list, then reintroduced it; and have been forced by the courts almost weekly to change their policy. Small wonder that last Friday the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees published a report that shows that for the second year running Britain has the worst record of all the industrialised nations. Is it not true that under the present Prime Minister we have become the asylum capital of the world?
    The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about the judgment. The judgment supported the principle that if people do not claim in time, they do not get their benefit. There are changes to the procedures in individual cases that we can make without disturbing that basic principle. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will hold me to account on the pledge and
    936
    commitment that we have given. If he looks carefully at the asylum figures for the end of last year, once the new asylum legislation came into effect, he will see that there was already a 25 per cent. drop in asylum claims. I am pleased to say that, as will become apparent in due course, that progress has continued well.
    Lynne Jones: Saddam Hussein has been offered immunity from prosecution if he leaves Iraq. On what authority was that offer made, what message does it send to other corrupt regimes, and what is my right hon. Friend's strategy for a return to a world order in which decisions are taken lawfully through the UN, rather than by the world's superpower? Or is it too late? With his help, has the foundation stone for the pax Americana already been laid?
    The Prime Minister: First, the reason why we were prepared to offer such a possibility was to avoid war, which is, after all, what I thought my hon. Friend wanted. If she was saying that President Bush had been too soft and should have said that we would remove Saddam Hussein in any event, I could understand that. We wanted to try to avoid conflict by having him voluntarily disarm. Then, if he refused to do so, we were prepared to give a further chance to resolve the matter peacefully by getting him to leave the country. Now we are faced with the prospect of leaving him in place without disarming him, or making sure that we remove him from power. I earnestly ask my hon. Friend to consider this.
    If we remove Saddam from power, as I believe we will have to because it is the only way of disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, the people who will rejoice most will be the Iraqi people who will be free of a murderous tyrant who has done nothing but damage to his country. If she wants to know what Iraq could be like, she should talk to the people in northern Iraq who, because of British and American pilots in the no-fly zone, have been able to build something of their country, and she will see that the true impulse of the Iraqi people is for greater freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law.
    Mr. John Randall: What lessons does the Prime Minister think could be learnt for a post-war Iraq from the current situation in Kosovo?
    The Prime Minister: First, I would say that people in Kosovo, as people in Afghanistan, whatever the difficulties, are infinitely better for being removed from the rule of brutal dictators, whether Milosovic or the Taliban. Secondly, we must stay in for the long term. It will be easier over time, but in Kosovo, as in Afghanistan, we cannot make a short-term commitment. We must make a long-term commitment to reconstruction and rebuilding those countries. But for all the difficulties in the Balkans at the moment, most obviously after the appalling assassination of the Serbian Prime Minister recently, the Balkans is at a point where it has a better prospect for peace and prosperity than probably at any time in the past 100

    937
    years. That is because we were prepared to take military action in order to remove the regime that was preventing that prosperity from coming about.
    Phil Hope: The Prime Minister will be aware that it was this Government who introduced the historic national minimum wage in the teeth of fierce opposition from the Conservative party. On behalf of temporary workers, particularly in my Corby constituency, may I thank the Government for the announcement today that the national minimum wage is to rise by three times the rate of inflation? But will my right hon. Friend consider lowering the adult rate so that 18-year-olds can qualify for the higher rate and applying a youth rate to 16 and 17-year-olds to prevent exploitation of young people in the workplace?
    The Prime Minister: The point that my hon. Friend makes about young people is one that is often made. Our concern has always been to ensure that we do nothing to disturb the employment prospects of young people, but we keep the matter under review. I am pleased to say that we have published the fourth report from the independent Low Pay Commission and, as he rightly says, it will mean that the minimum wage for adults rises from the present £4.20 to £4.50 in October, and then to £4.85 in October 2004. More than 1 million people are now benefiting from the minimum wage, many of them low-paid women workers, and, combined with the working families tax credit, literally thousands of families throughout the country in every constituency are benefiting from this Labour Government's drive towards greater equality.
    Chris Grayling: During the next few weeks our humanitarian response to the Iraqi crisis will be as important as our military one. Given the monumental mess that the Secretary of State for International Development has made this week of her own position, what confidence can we have that she is now the right person to do that job?
    The Prime Minister: We can have the confidence of the experience over many years in which that Department has gained a reputation throughout the world for the humanitarian assistance that it has given. That is as a result of the co-operation that has taken place not just between that Department and other Departments, but with the United Nations and with the American Government. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will put every effort into the humanitarian assistance that is required, and we will make sure, in particular, that as military action develops we are able to take care of the Iraqi people in a way that Saddam Hussein has not been able to do.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: The Prime Minister, in his powerful speech yesterday and again in his response to the Leader of the Opposition this lunchtime, has confirmed that it is crucial that any post-war settlement for Saddam Hussein's Iraq involves the UN in the administration and control of the oil revenues. We all know that during the next few weeks the logistical pressures on the Government, particularly on the Prime Minister, will be enormous, so can he reassure the House that he will talk
    938
    to the Foreign Secretary to insist that the detail of that arrangement is pursued with the utmost vigour with the Americans and involving the EU partners, both prospective from the enlargement countries and those that we have at the moment, including those who did not agree with the Government at the Security Council?
    The Prime Minister: There are two aspects. The first is the humanitarian relief that is necessary as military action gets under way, on which the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are working closely, obviously, with our military allies, particularly the US. Indeed, I took a meeting on that issue this morning. The second aspect will be humanitarian assistance in the post-conflict situation, which should be done under a UN resolution, as in relation to the administration, and of course we want to involve as many countries as possible.
    Mr. Mark Oaten: Does the Prime Minister believe that the United Nations needs to reform? If so, in what way should it reform, and what role will he have in that?
    The Prime Minister: There are issues, obviously, in relation to the UN Security Council and reform of it, which we will have to discuss with others, but the issue is not really institutional; it is whether we can construct a sufficiently strong partnership between Europe and America and a global agenda around which people can unite. If they cannot unite politically, no amount of institutional tinkering will help us resolve those problems. That is why, at the end of this, we need a period of reflection to see how we put that partnership back together, and how we construct the global agenda that would bring in a lot more people to our way of thinking. That, whatever the institutional arguments in the UN, is what is essential.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Now that military units are moving into what was previously the demilitarised zone in Kuwait and Iraq, will my right hon. Friend offer the House an assurance today that correct records and registers of inoculations, medication administered and weapons used in different sectors will be kept so that the parents of serving men and women can be assured that the right kind of inquiries can be made in the event of any condition arising akin to that which is called Gulf war syndrome?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend's point is justified. I know that procedures are already in place to do that, and, if he will allow me, I will write to him setting those out in detail. His point, however, is obviously important for the security and safety of our armed forces personnel.
    Mr. James Gray: Despite what the Prime Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) a moment ago, the fact is that a common European defence policy is central to the new draft constitution for Europe. Why

    939
    will he not allow the people of Britain the right to have a referendum so that they can have their say on the matter?
    The Prime Minister: Probably for the same reason that the Conservatives did not have one on Maastricht—[Interruption.] I know that they have changed a little bit in the meantime—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I ask Conservative Members to please sort this matter out among themselves, and come back later? The purpose of European defence is in relation to circumstances in which NATO does not want to undertake an operation but European defence has the capability of doing so.
    Mr. Gray indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is true. The best example of that is Bosnia in the early 1990s. Because, at that point, America did not want to become engaged, we did not have the capability of protecting people in Bosnia. As a result of that, thousands of people died, and we are still in Bosnia more than 10 years later.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Were cathedrals such as Durham, Lincoln or Wells to be damaged, what
    940
    would we feel? What precautions are being taken about Kerbala, Najaf, Ur, Hatra and the other great sites? That will be difficult, given that, as at Samarra last time, Saddam may place military objects near the ancient sites.
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises the propensity towards total irresponsibility of Saddam. I assure him that we are fully committed to the protection of cultural property. That is not merely the Government's position: we are also committed to that under the Geneva conventions. I understand that the Foreign Secretary has talked to him about that, and we will do everything that we can to make sure that sites of cultural or religious significance are properly and fully protected.
    Lembit Öpik: On a domestic matter, does the Prime Minister support in principle the devolution of student funding arrangements to the Welsh Assembly, given that the Labour-Liberal Democrat partnership has requested that?
    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Wales informs me that discussions about the issue are under way.

Iraq (Humanitarian Aid)
12.30 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement in response to the Select Committee on International Development's report on humanitarian contingency planning for Iraq.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)rose—
Hon. Members: Where is she?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked for an urgent question, which I have granted. I am not responsible for the identity of the Minister who comes to the Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] Order. He is a very good Minister.
Mr. O'Brien: I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who is doing her job in New York today discussing—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Fabricant, you get very excited at times. We are considering a serious matter. I have granted the urgent question and I can stop it if such behaviour continues in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Meriden asked for the urgent question and she is happy with the Minister.
Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you say, the matter is serious and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has asked me to reply to this important question about the way in which we tackle the crisis in Iraq.
The Government strongly welcome the Select Committee on International Development's fourth report, which was presented to the House a week ago. We will give a detailed response to its various recommendations in due course. However, one of the crucial matters that it raises is the way in which the Government would move forward in the immediate post-conflict situation to try to resolve some of the humanitarian issues, and especially whether we would seek a United Nations resolution—or, indeed, more than one—to take the process forward.
I confirm that we shall seek a further resolution to deal with the humanitarian issues. We shall try to transfer the oil-for-food programme to the United Nations Secretary-General to enable him to keep the process functioning and use UN facilities to do that. We will also seek a new UN resolution to provide authority for reconstruction and development work, and a proper mandate for any interim authority that is likely to operate in the territory of Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed. We will also try to ensure the rapid delivery of humanitarian aid, to affirm Iraq's territorial integrity and to allow UN sanctions to be lifted, thus enabling food and other necessary items to arrive.
942
We shall also enable an international reconstruction programme to facilitate the use of oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and to endorse a post-conflict administration in Iraq, which will lead to a representative Government who would uphold human rights and rule of law for all Iraqis.
Mrs. Spelman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting this urgent question on a serious and pressing matter. We appreciate that the Secretary of State for International Development is on her way to the United Nations in New York, as the Foreign Secretary announced, to seek a fresh Security Council resolution. That was contained in the text of the motion that we debated yesterday. We wish her success. But we are surprised that the answers to our question are to be given by a Foreign Office Minister, given that the Select Committee report calls for an immediate statement from the Department for International Development. Given that the Under-Secretary for that Department is present, it appears to us that there has been some dispute about who should answer the question.
The Secretary of State issued a written statement last Thursday, but it fell far short of responding to the 23 recommendations and conclusions in the Select Committee report. As it says on page 2 of the report, in the first stages of any conflict it is the military forces that will have primary responsibility for the initial delivery of humanitarian assistance. Is the Minister aware, however, of the concern of the non-governmental organisations—some of which are already in Iraq and the surrounding countries, ready to help—about the blurring of responsibility between military action and humanitarian relief?
The report is highly critical of the lack of consultation with the NGOs; indeed, we understand that such consultation has commenced only in the last two weeks. What is being done to improve information sharing with NGOs and to co-ordinate the UK and US aid agencies? Who is co-ordinating work with the military? Is it the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence, USAID, or the US Department of Defence? We need to know who is co-ordinating this work.
It is reported that the oil-for-food programme, which has been providing 60 per cent. of the Iraqi population with food aid at a cost of $250 million a month, has been suspended. What assessment has the Department for International Development made of how to substitute food relief on such a large scale? In a written answer to the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, it was stated that DFID had no more contingency funds available for 2002–03, although the Secretary of State has said that the Chancellor has allocated an additional £10 million. We understand, however, that the Ministry of Defence has been granted an additional £50 million for humanitarian relief purposes. Does this mean that the Ministry of Defence will take the lead on the humanitarian side in the early stages?
What estimate have the Government made of the total sum that will be required to finance a meaningful post-war reconstruction of Iraq, and for how many years do they estimate that such a programme will

943
continue? The International Development Committee concluded that it was as yet not convinced that there was, to use the Prime Minister's words,
"a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan".
We wholeheartedly agree with that conclusion. When will the Secretary of State herself make a statement to the House to prove us wrong?
Mr. O'Brien: May I first deal with why a Foreign Office Minister is dealing with this matter? I was in Washington last week, talking to USAID about precisely this issue, and discussing with the US Administration some of the terms of the resolutions that we will seek to put to the United Nations. It is currently envisaged that we will be putting at least two such resolutions to the UN. The first will deal with the immediate issues relating to the oil-for-food programme and humanitarian assistance. A further resolution will deal with some of the more complex issues relating to the humanitarian issues that will arise in the months to come. Both resolutions follow from the recommendations made in the report.
I hope that I have dealt at least to some extent with why I am answering rather than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, although no doubt I have not done so to the hon. Lady's satisfaction.
The 23 recommendations are being examined, and a full and detailed response will be made in due course.
The non-governmental organisations want to ensure that they are fully apprised of the developing situation. Through DFID, we have been holding weekly meetings with the NGOs. One of their complaints is that they do not know all the details of precisely what will happen at various stages. There has of course been concern about the revealing of some military operations, but I think that we can now be much more open with the NGOs about what is likely to happen, and deal with many of the questions that they have been asking. I hope that the meetings will enable them to feel that they are receiving the information that they want.
The hon. Lady asked who was co-ordinating the aid with the military. A number of steps are being taken. DFID has two advisers on humanitarian issues, who have been posted with 1 Division and will work with the military. They are experts on not just human rights but humanitarian issues applying to the military. The military will be the first in there, and are responsible for ensuring that they operate in a proper humanitarian context. There is also a humanitarian expert from DFID with the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance—ORHA—the American organisation that expects to administer the post-conflict situation.
The key problem is that 60 per cent. of Iraqis depend on the oil-for-food programme because of the way in which Saddam Hussein has run the country. It is crucial for the programme to go on functioning. The UN resolution under discussion is intended to ensure that it does so, and we shall be transferring responsibilities for the administration of the system to the UN Secretary-General.
944
As for resources, £100 million of bilateral humanitarian aid has been allocated since 1991. There is £10 million of new money for the contingency plans of the UN agencies. The Department has secured £70 million from the contingency reserve, and the military have a further £30 million for humanitarian and human rights purposes. The military will have responsibility at the beginning for ensuring the early delivery of humanitarian aid, which is why they have that £30 million. While the military operations are in progress they will also do humanitarian work, which will be followed up by the NGOs as security is established. The UN will then be brought in to ensure that the whole process is administered properly. There will, therefore, be proper and effective co-ordination.
It was clear from my discussions with USAID that—along with DFID, for which it has nothing but praise—it has a detailed humanitarian plan to ensure that the various possible post-conflict scenarios can be dealt with. The Committee was worried that there might have been no detailed planning, but according to what I see and have been able to establish from discussions between DFID and USAID, the planning has been done and the humanitarian effort will be conducted properly.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on tabling this urgent question, and I pay tribute to the work that she has done on this issue over many weeks in the run-up to this crisis. In the light of this morning's somewhat cobbled together response, I am quite relieved that the Secretary of State is staying in her post for the next few weeks—even if she will be incarcerated in the Tower of London come July.
The humanitarian situation is going to be dire, and we demand to know, and should have known long before this, exactly what the Department's contingency plans are. I want to move the Minister on to post-conflict reconstruction. It seems to us that the USA already has very advanced plans, even to the extent of awarding contracts to American companies. What part is Britain playing in post-conflict reconstruction, and what British companies will play a part in it? Exactly how much money are the British Government going to spend on post-conflict humanitarian aid or reconstruction? Can we have an assurance that that money will not come out of DFID's budget, which is meant for the very poorest people in the world? Finally, can we also have an assurance that the oil revenues that we are told will be put in trust for the people of Iraq will not be used to repair the damage done by American bombers in the next few weeks?
Mr. O'Brien: I confirm that, as part of the UN resolutions, we want to make it very clear that every single penny of the oil money that has not been plundered by Saddam Hussein already should go to the people of Iraq. It is very clear that the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is having in New York and in Washington are in order to ensure that the resources are available to deal with the post-conflict situation, and that the oil money that will be put in trust for the people of Iraq will be deployed exclusively for their benefit. We want to ensure, and to be quite unequivocal, that that is our intention.

945
On British companies, USAID has at this stage used primarily American resources to let a number of contracts to American companies. We have received reassurance from the US Administration that many of those companies will subcontract up to 50 per cent. of the work that they will do as part of the humanitarian response, and that will be available to other countries to bid for. USAID assured me that the country that it works with most effectively is Britain, and that the Department that it works with most effectively is DFID. So British companies currently operating with DFID and other Government Departments will be able to undertake, and to bid for, contracts through the American companies. We are very conscious of this issue, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will discuss the detail of how this will be done in Washington.
The hon. Lady asked exactly how much money will be spent, and she is rightly concerned about the idea that resources intended for the very poorest might be diverted elsewhere. It is our intention that that should not happen, and, as I have said there is provision in the contingency reserve. We want to protect the money that is already being applied for the very poorest, and to ensure that those resources are maintained and allocated properly. However, we also want to ensure that we deal with our responsibilities to the people of Iraq, and we will do so.
Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend will be aware of the consequences of the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons in the Gulf war. Nearly 2,000 Kuwaitis have been killed or injured since that war by exploding bombs, and there are many birth defects and cancers in Iraq. Ministers have failed to deny that such weapons will be used in the coming conflict. Assuming that they are used, what special arrangements will be made to deal with their humanitarian consequences?
Mr. O'Brien: I have seen in Afghanistan some of the damage that can be done by the weapons deployed in conflict situations. It is important that we support the good work being done by various NGOs in trying to ensure that there is a proper clean-up of the results of conflict. As my hon. Friend will know, the Ottawa agreement does not make the use of cluster bombs unlawful. At this stage, I cannot say what the intentions are in respect of those weapons. However, when it comes to targeting, we are determined that the coalition forces will do everything possible to ensure that they avoid civilian casualties, and to avoid creating circumstances that will cause civilian casualties in the aftermath of a conflict. We are very conscious of the matter, and we will seek to deal with it.
Tony Baldry: I have two straightforward questions for the Minister, about food security and internally displaced people. It is estimated that, between now and the end of March, 460,000 tonnes of food aid will be needed in Iraq. Only a third of that amount is immediately available. How is the rest to be funded and delivered?
946
On IDPs, practically no provision has yet been made to provide refuges for people internally displaced as a result of the conflict in Iraq. Who is getting a grip on providing and funding such refuges?
Mr. O'Brien: A lot of planning has been done on food security. We have talked to the various NGOs that may have to deal with some of the IDPs, and to the countries that may be affected as people try to move towards their borders. We have been seeking agreements with other countries about how they will respond to the refugees coming towards their borders. We have also been talking to the military, who will obviously come across IDPs very quickly. We have discussed how they will ensure that those people's safety is guaranteed and how they will ensure that IDPs get the humanitarian aid that they need as quickly as possible. There are plans in place, therefore, to deal with both the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give him a more detailed response.
Ann Clwyd: As my hon. Friend knows, thousands of Kurds died unnecessarily in 1991 because neighbouring countries shut their borders. That underlines the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). Turkey and Syria shut their borders, but Iran was the exception. That has been known for some time. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister is standing in, so I shall not press him too hard on the matter, but I am sure that somebody will have had talks with the neighbouring countries by now. I am sure that the House is keen to know what the response has been.
Secondly, the Kurds are already moving out of the area, heading towards the mountains and the villages where their relatives are. The UN forces have gone, leaving the Kurds with the keys to the doors of the buildings where there are food supplies, blankets and tents. However, they have not left any way to transport those items. This is an urgent matter, and I hope that the Minister will look into it very soon.
Mr. O'Brien: Obviously, the situation in the north, where the Kurds are, is somewhat better than elsewhere in Iraq. There at least we can make some provision to deal with some of the humanitarian issues involved. We are in discussion with representatives of the Kurds in the north about how to go about that, and how best to ensure that they can deal with any refugees who come their way.
We do not anticipate that large numbers of people will seek to cross the Turkish border. I spoke to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad a couple of weeks ago, about the circumstances in relation to that country. At the moment, although they are not anxious to have large numbers of people cross their border, the Syrians are making some provision to assist the ones who may come in Syria's direction.
We anticipate that most people will head towards Iran. I have also talked to the Iranian Foreign Minister and others about how Iran will deal with that

947
eventuality. The Iranians are working with us to minimise the problems that refugees who go towards Iran may face.
There is a lot of discussion going on, with Syria and Iran, and, obviously, with Kuwait. We are also talking to the people who are in control in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Minister will realise that his handling of the urgent question today is not inspiring confidence. His reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on IDPs was not good. In the previous Gulf conflict, the western relief programme was hampered by the absence of UN High Commissioner for Refugees personnel. The UNHCR did not play its usual co-ordination role—which we are all concerned about this time—because its mandate did not cover IDPs. Will the Minister say whether that is still true, or will the UNCHR be able to play its full role in any relief programme, irrespective of the status of those people?
Mr. O'Brien: The International Committee of the Red Cross will obviously have an important role in the whole process, as will the UNHCR. Those organisations clearly have a responsibility, and there is no question but that they will accept it. Obviously, some of the organisations were reluctant to enter into discussions at too early a stage, as they needed to cover their international positions. However, we are now in a position to enter into detailed discussions with them. We have started preliminary discussions already. We will follow up on those, and ensure that these matters are dealt with.
The hon. Lady began her question with some rather curmudgeonly remarks, and I am sorry to disappoint her. However, we are trying to ensure that we deal with these matters seriously. If she wants to make points that are rather silly and pathetic, that is a matter for her.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: We have been told that Saddam Hussein has put in place a military plan to divide his country into quarters. There is no doubt that that will make it extremely difficult for people to move around inside Iraq. Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said about the movement of people to the borders, does my hon. Friend the Minister think that there is a really urgent need to revisit the negotiations with neighbouring states about the acceptance of refugees? Is there not an urgent need that food, medicine and shelter be provided for the people who arrive at those borders?
Mr. O'Brien: Substantial negotiations have already been held with each of the Governments involved about matters of food and shelter. My hon. Friend is right to say that Saddam Hussein's apparent proposals for deployment of his military forces may make it difficult for some refugees to flee. We do not know yet how he will try to manage that deployment, but we will certainly guarantee to talk to the adjoining countries to ensure that they are aware of the support that we can provide. We will also ensure that the UN agencies and the other
948
NGOs are engaged, and we will do everything that we can to protect the humanitarian needs of all those who have to flee from any conflict.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Some people are worried about what our troops might be doing when they go into the territories that the House is discussing but, as in the past, so in the future, they will be working to help the people who need their help. I am sure that the Minister will agree about that. Does he share my concern that Oxfam representatives, speaking for the NGOs, told the "Newsnight" programme the other evening that they would not seek finance from the UK or the US? Where will they get their finance? On Monday evening, I asked the Foreign Secretary about the fact that the $130 million appeal for UN humanitarian aid had realised only $30 million. Who has supplied that $30 million?
Mr. O'Brien: The NGOs will have to decide how they want to deal with any particular request for money. Some may feel that they want to make requests, and in those circumstances we will discuss such requests with them. Some may decide that they do not want to do so. There is nothing that we can do about that, but we hope that they will become engaged in the relief process.
On the availability of resources, DFID has made a call on its contingency reserve. We want to ensure that sufficient resources are available to enable humanitarian efforts to be carried out.
Chris McCafferty: Can the Minister clarify the time scale for the necessary resolution at the UN Security Council to restart the oil-for-food programme, given the comments of the UN coordinator to the Select Committee that that could take up to four weeks?
Mr. O'Brien: As regards the time scale for the initial humanitarian resolution, the objective is that it should be done almost straight away. Provided that we can complete the discussions with the UN, we would hope to be able to do it within a matter of days or a week or so. The wider humanitarian effort may require a little more discussion in the Security Council; we have draft proposals that we hope to discuss with other members of it. That may take a week or two.
On the oil-for-food programme, we have already worked on plans to ensure that it keeps operating. The basic structure exists for its broad administration, but we will have to ensure that when the coalition forces are in Iraq, and the NGOs follow them up, the necessary administrative structure is in place to ensure that everyone gets the food and other resources that they urgently need.
Mr. Peter Lilley: The Minister won the respect of the House when he was sacked for revealing the communications between his old Department and others. He seems to have been reappointed on the condition that he does not repeat the offence or gives the impression that no communication is taking place. Will he now tell the House which Department is co-ordinating this very important humanitarian operation? If it is DFID, why is not the excellent Under-Secretary of State for International

949
Development giving us much more informative answers, as I am sure that she could? If it is not DFID, does that reflect the uncertain status of the Secretary of State for that Department?
Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman is a former Secretary of State, and I expect something more from him than cheap comments like that. We are dealing with issues of conflict, refugees and ensuring that lives are protected. The cheap comments that he comes out with make his questions barely worth answering, but let me try to do so in any event.
He asked which Department is co-ordinating the operation. Obviously, DFID is co-ordinating it through other Departments and committees. Cabinet Committees are also dealing with the issue, and DFID is co-ordinating some of the operations between the UN and the various other NGOs that will deal with the post-conflict situation.
The reason I am answering questions is that I have just come back from Washington, where I discussed the terms of the UN resolutions and the detail of how the post-conflict humanitarian circumstances will be dealt with by the United States and by this country.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the Minister share the concerns of the civilian NGOs who want to follow any conflict as soon as possible with civilian aid in Iraq? Is he aware that the cost of militarily delivered humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan was $7 for a certain item that could be delivered by civilian humanitarian aid at a cost of 30 cents per item, and that it is therefore important to get the civilian NGOs into Iraq as soon as possible? Does he agree that conflict reconstruction in Iraq will arise from three sources—the previous Gulf war, the neglect of Iraq by Saddam Hussein and any destruction that occurs in this conflict—and that it would therefore be wrong for the entire revenues of the oil programme in Iraq to be used for that? Can he say a little more about the extra resources that his Government will make available directly to DFID for humanitarian efforts in Iraq not only now, but in future?
Mr. O'Brien: We have been clear that the oil money will be put into a trust and will be used for the benefit of the people of Iraq. There is also substantial further American money that is being deployed for humanitarian and aid purposes, as well as the resources I mentioned earlier that will be deployed by the British Government, and we anticipate that other countries will wish to make substantial contributions, as will the United Nations.
As for the cost, it is true that military costs will be higher than those of NGOs. The problem with Iraq, however, is that although some NGOs have operated there in the past, there are very few of them and they do not operate freely. Furthermore, many of them will withdraw in the next few weeks. Post conflict, therefore, the military will be there first. It is best that they are in
950
a position quickly to deliver the aid that is needed, so they have been resourced to do that. However, as soon as we are able to do so, we will bring in other NGOs—the UN and other organisations—to ensure that aid is deployed, as the hon. Gentleman says, more cheaply, but, more importantly, more effectively.
Hugh Bayley: Will my hon. Friend look at paragraph 25 of the report, which records the UN's estimate that during the Gulf war between 15,000 and 30,000 refugees died from infectious diseases such as measles, diarrhoea, cholera and typhoid? Will the Government ensure that refugee camps have not only sanitation and clean water, but immunisation for refugees as they arrive and health care for those who are ill?
Mr. O'Brien: I assure my hon. Friend that there are provisions to deal with the availability of water supplies in any refugee camps that may need to be set up and to ensure, in terms of the military operations that are conducted, that there is as little disruption as possible to proper water supplies so as to minimise the problems that we may face post conflict.
On immunisation, it is enormously important that if any refugee camps are set up there are effective immunisation programmes to ensure that infectious diseases are not spread within them. We shall certainly put in place the medical and other facilities to ensure that effective immunisation programmes are set up.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who gladly gave support to the Prime Minister yesterday, and who admire enormously the national leadership that he is giving, nevertheless attach almost equal importance to the subject that we are discussing? Does he accept that it is absolutely incredible that he should be answering these questions? We are sorry that the Under-Secretary appears to have lost her voice, but it is important that whoever is in charge of these matters—the Minister said that it is the Secretary of State—should enjoy the confidence of this House. One Minister has lost her voice; the other should lose her job.
Mr. O'Brien: I have passed on to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the hon. Gentleman's sympathy for the loss of her voice. I assure him that it will come back and will be as strong and effective as ever. I am fully aware that the House attaches enormous importance—as do my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I—to the issue of humanitarian aid, and we will make sure that the Government treat it as a very high priority so as to ensure that that aid, and the human rights back-up that is also required, is in place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Points of Order
1.8 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to stress that in asking for the urgent question today we knew that the Secretary of State was on her way elsewhere. I hope that I made that clear. Is it in order, however, for the Department that is the focus of the urgent question to pass on the responsibility for answering to another Department? I have to say that I found all the answers profoundly unsatisfactory. I repeat my request for an urgent statement from the Secretary of State, and I will keep on asking for it until we get it.
Mr. Mark Francois: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to answer the point of order. It may be, once I have answered it, that the hon. Gentleman will not have to raise anything further.
It is up to the Government which Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to respond on such matters.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have observed, as I have, that the Minister from the Department for International Development, who is in her place, spent almost the entire time briefing the Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. What puzzles me, no doubt the House, and perhaps even you, Mr. Speaker, is that, if the Minister who obviously knows about this matter is sitting silent, and the Minister who does not seem to know very much about it is attempting to answer questions but is being briefed by the Minister who does, what sort of attitude on the part of the Government does that display to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker? Why do we have to have this musical chairs act when we are engaged in discussing a very serious matter and should be getting proper answers from the proper Department—the Secretary of State having apparently fled the country?
Mr. Speaker: I say to the shadow Leader of the House that we must move on to the protected business. The matters that have been raised have nothing to do with the Chair.
Are there further points of order? I want to move on from the urgent question, as it has run for long enough.
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have heard reports, as yet unconfirmed, that Tariq Aziz has defected to northern Iraq, to territory held by the Kurdistan Democratic Party. If that report is confirmed, it would be useful to have a statement.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the appropriate Minister will have heard.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We too have heard these rumours. At this point, they have not been confirmed. We are seeking confirmation.
Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on another matter?
Glenda Jackson: It is, Mr. Speaker. The Government are advising the citizens of this country to lay in stores including tinned food, bottled water, a torch and blankets, yet there is no further detail as to why they should be laying in such stores. If no Minister has asked to come to make a statement on this matter, I would like your advice, Mr. Speaker, on how best to prise from the Government rather more detail on what is a somewhat bizarre piece of advice.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is a very experienced Member of Parliament and I would have thought that her first move would be to phone the Minister concerned and ask him.
Glenda Jackson: Which Minister?
Mr. Speaker: I am not inviting her to do so, but she might start at the top and then work her way down.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), Mr. Speaker, to which the Minister responded a moment or two ago. May I suggest through you that, if the rumour is confirmed, the Minister be invited to make a definitive statement later today?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister will have heard.
Mr. Mike O'Brien indicated assent.
David Maclean: Further to the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, Mr. Speaker, and further to the Minister's intervention during that point of order. May I suggest to the Minister that, throughout the coming conflict over the next few days, if he does have information that may be of benefit to the House, this side of the House, through the usual channels, will be very willing to facilitate the interruption of business at any sensible and convenient hour, or to stay later than the normal hours, so that the House can be kept fully informed, where appropriate, of information that is not militarily sensitive?
Mr. O'Brien: We will try to keep the House informed. We need to be careful about rumours, because rumours often sweep through. The rumour—and I want to emphasise that it is no more than a rumour at this stage—is from a Bulgarian source. [Interruption.] It is no more than a rumour, but it is that Tariq Aziz may have been killed. There are rumours at the moment but we do not know whether they are true. We will seek to clarify the situation. Once we have clarified the situation, I will be sure to keep hon. Members on the Opposition Benches informed.

Registration of Private Foster Carers and Child Protection
1.14 pm
Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the registration of private foster carers; to institute procedures for identifying and monitoring children arriving in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by adults with parental responsibility and make provision for their welfare; and to amend the law with regard to joint enterprise when prosecuting carers responsible for the death of children in their care; and for connected purposes.
My Bill is wide ranging. It deals with three main aspects of child protection, all of which are very topical after a string of child abuse and child murder cases—most prominently, the tragic murder of Victoria Climbié at the hands of her private foster carers, following which there was the comprehensive report by Lord Lamming on the whole horrific series of blunders that led up to the murder. The horrendous circumstances of Victoria Climbié's death should not, however, lead us to overlook the many other tragic murders of children at the hands of their parents or carers.
It is difficult to comprehend, but, in this country, an average of 79 child homicides happen every year—mostly involving children under the age of five and mostly at the hands of the child's parents or carers. More incredible still is how few murder convictions are subsequently secured. Out of 366 such cases that were investigated by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, only 99 resulted in a conviction, and no further action was taken in a staggering 225 cases. Of the convictions, few were actually for murder if they involved a couple jointly, because of the difficulties of providing joint enterprise evidence and of proving who struck the fatal blow. Consequently, many people escape with the lesser charge of cruelty, as happened in the case of four-year-old John Smith in my constituency. He died from brain injuries after a catalogue of abuse by his foster parents, Simon and Michelle McWilliam. They received a maximum eight-year sentence for cruelty, not murder, as each blamed the other.
I know that the Government and the Law Commission are sympathetic to changes in the law, although attempts to amend the Criminal Justice Bill in Committee earlier this month were not taken up. My Bill offers a second chance and would place a duty of care on parents if a child was suffering and establish a charge of joint enterprise on parents equally if, when charged with the death of a child, they gave similar accounts of the circumstances leading up to the death that later turned out to be false. In the meantime, the situation could be helped by better guidance from judges to juries on the complicated matter of joint enterprise.
My second and main subject is the absence of a legal requirement for the registration of commercial private foster carers. Child protection legislation can be traced back to the Infant Life Protection Act 1872, which was produced in the wake of a Select Committee report on private fostering—or baby farming, as it was then known. That report was the response to the case of a Mrs. Walters, who, in 1870, was tried and executed for the murder of several children. That legislation was the

955
first recognition of a public duty in this area. Much more legislation has followed. The Nurseries and Childminding Regulation Act 1948 provided a set of checks on child minders. Registration followed with a 1968 Act. Those Acts have promoted a strong professional culture with training and support benefits for child minders. There were extensive improvements to recognise the paramouncy of children's welfare in the Children Act 1989. In 1993, an inspection of private fostering by the social services inspectorate raised some real concerns about the welfare of children who are cared for in this way. In 1997, the Utting report, which was commissioned by the Government, came down strongly in favour of a system of private foster care registration. The report stated that children in private foster care are
"extremely vulnerable and at very considerable risk of abuse".
However, Utting's recommendation was not subsequently taken up.
In 1999, a joint working party on foster care revealed the high potential for abuse and neglect. It urged the regulation of private fostering and a public awareness campaign. Most recently, Lord Lamming has recommended a review of the situation. Through all of this time, we have seen extensive regulations for child minding; care standards for the inspection of care homes and foster agencies; new adoption rights and requirements; hundreds of thousands of people dealing with young people being subjected to checks by the Criminal Records Bureau; and even legislation to clamp down on puppy farming. However, incredibly, people who offer their services as private foster carers—often as complete strangers—have no legal compunction to register their services, although local authority registers do exist. For those people, unknown to local social services departments, there can be no guarantee of the quality of care, no guarantee that the foster carer is accessing appropriate training support and benefit, and no control over the number of different placements that the child will experience—which, under "Quality Protects" guidelines, should be no more than three.
I am sure that the great majority of private foster carers do a good job and pose no threat to their charges. However, we simply do not know. In any case, the Climbié inquiry was the first inquiry into the case of a privately fostered child by any central Government or local government board. We have no idea of the extent of the problem. After all, the Department of Health stopped collecting data on private fostering in 1991 because its figures were so inaccurate.
It has been estimated that there are between 8,000 and 10,000 private foster carers in this country, mostly for under-five-year-olds from west Africa. However, that is probably only the tip of the iceberg. Since the 1991 regulations, there have been local registers of foster carers but there is no legal penalty for not registering, and many people are ignorant of the requirements. Similarly, local authorities have a duty of care for the general welfare of privately fostered children; but they have to find those children first and even then they have few powers to dismiss poor foster carers. Added to that, surveys and inspections show that the monitoring of private foster arrangements has low priority with many local authorities and, in some cases, it is non-existent.
956
It is thus time to make it a legal requirement for private foster carers to notify their activities to a register of private foster carers, with penalties if they fail to do so. It would also be an offence for people to entrust their children to a private foster carer who is not so registered. It is time to expose an underground activity to the reasonable scrutiny of the light of day. There is no guarantee that all private foster carers would register, but the measure should act as a significant incentive, accompanied by local awareness campaigns.
The definition of private foster care is:
"When a child up to the age of 16 (or 18 if disabled) is placed for more than 28 days in the care of someone who is not a close relative, guardian or someone with parental responsibilities".
Close relatives are parents, step-parents, siblings, brothers or sisters of a parent, or grandparents.
The register would not be easy to police; no system can be foolproof. I do not want to play the nanny state and interfere with arrangements for children who are legitimately attending boarding schools or language schools or who are on holiday exchanges and so on. In most cases, there are existing checks on those educational establishments and the families with whom they may place children. It should be possible to establish regulations to exclude what are technically different types of fostering.
My Bill would set up a national register of private foster carers of children aged under 11, with penalties for non-registration that are similar to those for childminding registration. The register would be simple and could be run for relatively little cost by an agency, using arrangements similar to those for the adoption register. The registration requirements would be minimal.
There would be many advantages. The register would be available to birth parents who still wanted to pursue a private foster arrangement. It would enable local authorities to ensure that standards of care were suitable and that appropriate help was offered. A national register would deter private foster carers who had fallen foul of local authority inspections or authorised foster agencies, but who had not committed offences sufficient to be put on the Department of Health 99 list and had simply moved to another area and set up business there. The register would be welcomed by all those involved with children in care in this country, and would provide an added degree of protection for children placed in private foster care, both domestically and from overseas, with minimal intrusion.
My third and final consideration concerns children who arrive at ports or airports, unaccompanied by adults who are their parents or who have parental responsibility. That is how Victoria Climbié arrived on our shores. That is how many Nigerian girls arrive at Gatwick airport claiming asylum, only for many of them to end up in prostitution at the hands of pimps in northern Italy. That is how many children are being trafficked by unscrupulous individuals and destined for a grim existence; let alone all the many children who are sent by their parents to the UK in the hope of a better future, but largely in ignorance of the care they will receive or the circumstances in which they will be placed.
My Bill would make provision for better checks on children arriving in the UK unaccompanied by parents, close relatives or those with parental responsibility. Such unaccompanied children would be required to

957
have special written and logged permission from their parents or those with parental responsibility, with information about the length of their stay and who will be responsible for them while they are resident in the UK. Arrangements with schools, language schools and so on would require no further checking but, under the new register, checks would need to be made for children destined to live in commercial private foster care or under other arrangements. Local agencies, such as social services, would be alerted so that the necessary monitoring provisions could be instituted as appropriate.
Failure to produce permission to travel would warrant investigation by the authorities before the child is able to leave the port of entry, either to be returned home or to live in the UK. Such arrangements would go a long way towards clamping down on child trafficking, the abuse of unaccompanied child asylum seekers and the commercial exploitation of children.
My Bill is intended to institute only minimal interference and regulation, but the primary purpose of any such changes should be not the benefit of carers but the protection of children. It is to them that we all have a duty of care.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Tim Loughton, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Ms Meg Munn, Kevin Brennan, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Jonathan Shaw, Mr. Julian Brazier, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Jonathan Djanogly, Mr. Robert Walter, Mr. Robert Syms and Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

Registration of Private Foster Carers and Child Protection

  REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE FOSTER CARERS AND CHILD PROTECTION
  Tim Loughton accordingly presented a Bill to require the registration of private foster carers; to institute procedures for identifying and monitoring children arriving in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by adults with parental responsibility and make provision for their welfare; and to amend the law with regard to joint enterprise when prosecuting carers responsible for the death of children in their care; and for connected
  958
  purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed [Bill 80].

  COMMUNITY CARE (DELAYED DISCHARGES ETC.) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Community Care (Delayed Discharges Etc.) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 28th November 2002—

  COMMUNITY CARE (DELAYED DISCHARGES ETC.) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

    Consideration of Lords Amendments
    1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at the moment of interruption on the day on which they commence.

    2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the second column.

    TABLE

    Lords Amendments

    Time for conclusion of proceedings

    Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 47, 4, 10 to 13, 21, 7, 8 and 39.

    Three and a half hours before the moment of interruption.

    Nos. 6, 9, 14 to 16, 18, 23, 17, 19, 40, 42 and 44 to 46.

    Two hours before the moment of interruption.

    Nos. 24, 25, 22, 26 to 28, 33, 43, 34, 35, 41, 20, 32, 29 to 31 and 36 to 38.

    The moment of interruption.

    Subsequent Stages
    3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.

    4. Proceedings on any further Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Woolas.]

    Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Community Care (Delayed Discharges Etc.) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Community Care (Delayed Discharges Etc.) Bill
    Clause 1

      MEANING OF "NHS BODY" AND "QUALIFYING HOSPITAL PATIENT"
      Lords amendment: No. 1.
      1.26 pm
      The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 2 and the Government motion to disagree thereto and Lords amendment No. 3.
      Jacqui Smith: In welcoming the Bill back from the other place, I take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the work of my noble Friend Lord Hunt in taking the Bill through the Lords. He was a good and able colleague, who will be missed by me and by many people who are interested in this sector.
      Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are technical amendments, which are necessary to provide clarification that the Bill does not apply to any person who is ordinarily resident outside England and Wales. They do not affect the substance of the Bill in any way, but simply serve to avoid any misunderstanding in the future about the patients to whom the Bill is intended to apply. I therefore hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting them.
      We disagree with the Lords in their amendment No. 2. The amendment would specifically exclude patients with a mental health condition from the Bill's provisions. The intention of the Bill is that payment responsibility should rest with the body that has responsibility for providing for the needs of a patient, to ensure that the patient receives the right care, in the right place and at the right time. It would establish a system of incentives to ensure the appropriate delivery of care.
      The Government's intention is to use the regulations to exclude mental health care from the scope of the Bill, and later to extend the provisions of the Bill to other types of care where there are delays. We have chosen to take a pragmatic approach, as we do not want to overload local partnerships with preparing for implementation across the system.
      It is not justified, however, to prevent the possibility of those provisions being extended to cover mental health. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights was concerned that the provisions of the Bill should not exclude patients with mental health problems, as that could be seen as discrimination because the nature of the patient's condition was mental rather than physical. However, we will make the decision to extend the scope
      960
      of the Bill after a full and proper examination of the needs of mental health patients and of incentives in the mental health sector as a whole.
      The Department has received representations from many mental health professionals who are concerned that their patients should be included in these provisions as soon as possible, to benefit from the more timely provision of services that should result. For example, an e-mail from a consultant psychiatrist for older people puts it clearly:
      "Many of my patients are waiting months for placement in appropriate long term care; waiting on an acute ward with acutely ill, depressed or confused patients is very detrimental to their health. They are just as disadvantaged as any other older patient which this Bill seeks to benefit".
      I recognise that concern. Surely patients with mental health problems deserve the opportunity to ensure, as the Bill will for other patients, that they receive that care when they need it.
      1.30 pm
      If the Bill is successful—I am confident that it will be—in continuing to reduce patient waits for community care services so that patients can be safely discharged from hospital, I cannot understand how excluding mental health patients from the system can be justified. The right course of action is to monitor the effect of reimbursement on the acute sector and then, if appropriate, make a decision to include the mental health sector in the light of evidence. If we were to exclude that sector now, we would fail to recognise the very important benefits that the Bill could bring, and that could be discriminatory; so I hope that my colleagues and other hon. Members will disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Simon Burns: I wish to speak to Lords amendment No. 2. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends and others will not share the Government's view that they should disagree with the other place in that amendment, because its purpose is to exclude mental health patients from these provisions. Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, we believe that there is a separate problem with mental health patients, as opposed to acute patients, partly because of the historic situation in the national health service until about a decade ago.
      I believe that—this is becoming a bit of a cliché—mental health was a Cinderella service until about a decade ago, regardless of which Government were in power. If a Government—again, regardless of their political complexion—needed to make savings or had financial constraints on health spending for other reasons, it was too easy to sweep a range of services under the carpet, and mental health services suffered most. In addition, there was—sadly, there still is—a problem with the general attitude of this country's population.
      Some people think that there is something odd or unacceptable about mental health problems, so people suffering from such problems do not receive the same consideration and concern from friends and even family as other patients. That prejudice has continued despite, to be fair, the efforts of this Government and those of John Major's Government to reduce the stigma

      961
      attached to mental illness and to bolster the health service provision for those with mental illness with genuine increases in funding and focusing attention on improving and enhancing mental health care. There is still, however, a fundamental difference—whether it is right or wrong is another matter—between mental health patients and acute patients, and the Bill should reflect that fact of life, whether one likes it or not.
      Of course, over-extended stays in psychiatric wards are a problem. For example, a recent survey in acute psychiatric wards, conducted by the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, concluded that hospital care was non-therapeutic, but there are times when hospital admissions cannot be avoided. For example, when patients are so ill that they are incapable of looking after themselves, hospitals provide the only appropriate care for them. However, mental health care is in many ways very different from acute care, so different approaches are needed.
      Given those unique mental health considerations, if legal duties are imposed under the Bill to compel one part of the sector, in effect, to penalise the others, that could put at risk especially vulnerable patients suffering from mental health problems. In addition, there is a shortage of capacity in hospitals, other supported accommodation, rehabilitation services and 24-hour staffed beds in inner cities. As a result, to require local authorities to provide care quickly in those circumstances is unrealistic and unfair, and it could be dangerous in certain conditions.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Instead of trying to introduce some, frankly spurious, distinctions between mental health and other aspects of the health service, will the hon. Gentleman direct his remarks to the question of the right patients? Do not people with mental health problems have exactly the same right as anyone else to live in the community and receive provision there?
      Mr. Burns: I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention slightly contradictory and complex, but I agree with the last part of what he says. No one wants people to be kept in hospital when they do not need to be there, and all of us want each patient to receive the most appropriate care—whether, in the case of the elderly, in their own homes with a domiciliary care package, or in residential care homes. We would agree on that. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, particularly given some of his statements in recent days, I resent his use of the word "spurious" because the argument is not spurious, and I hope that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, will back me up.
      Mr. David Hinchliffe: It is not exactly a secret that I am not the Bill's biggest fan, but I am trying to understand how Lords amendment No. 2 would work in practice, and I have not been assisted so far by the contribution of the hon. Gentleman who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench. What is meant by the phrase "a person receiving mental health services"? That seems to be such a wide-ranging definition, and it could include huge numbers of people who are on antidepressants from a general practitioner. Is the hon.
      962
      Gentleman specifically focusing on individuals in psychiatric beds in acute hospitals? Is that the purpose of his argument?
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I apologise if I am being obscure in certain areas, but, yes, the fundamental basis of my argument is that I believe—this is the intention of Lords amendment No. 2—that those people who are, in effect, defined as receiving treatment in hospital psychiatric beds should be exempt from the Bill. The bottom line is that I do not want the pressure that the Bill will put on hospital discharges to be put on those patients because of the nature of their illness and treatment, and the Bill should recognise the difference between mental health treatment and acute treatment. I know what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is interesting that the Minister in the other place, the late Lord Hunt—
      Jim Fitzpatrick: He is not dead.
      Mr. Burns: The Whip is absolutely right. Lord Hunt is not dead, but he is politically dead to such an extent that the Deputy Prime Minister did not recognise that he was a human being or that he had been a member of the Administration, despite the fact that he had been for almost six years. He is politically dead, so the word "late" was probably justified in that context.
      Glenda Jackson: My confusion about the hon. Gentleman's proposal arises because he talks in a broad and categorical way about patients who are in beds in psychiatric hospitals, but even that does not bring the definition down to a level that I find comprehensible. People who suffer from mental illnesses may need a bed in a secure psychiatric hospital for a comparatively short time, but others will need such a bed for much longer. There are as many variations among the extreme episodes endured by people who suffer from mental illnesses as there are in any other field of medicine. The proposal is simply not clear.
      Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady is entitled to her view. Her point that the time spent in a hospital bed by an individual suffering from mental health or acute health problems will vary depending on individual circumstances is right. The point that I am trying to make is that the situation is different for mental health, and we do not want to impede the treatment and future appropriate care of individuals suffering from mental health by putting them under the umbrella of the Bill and placing additional pressures on them.
      Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burns: I shall not, because I want to make progress.
      The answer is to exclude mental health patients from the Bill in the same way as other groups of people will be excluded from its ambit, although the Government have the power to include them if they are so minded. Excluding mental health patients is the right way to proceed because of the nature of mental illness and its

      963
      historic position in the NHS until about a decade ago. The group could be included in the future, but it should not be included at the moment. That is why I hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendment and disagree with the Government's motion.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I shall simply respond to the hon. Gentleman's comments. I listened carefully as he supported the Lords amendment, but his arguments do not seem to relate to its wording. His comments were very specific. He clearly implied that he was focusing on the circumstances of individuals who are in acute psychiatric beds and—to use his words—suffering from mental health. We all have mental health, although we do not necessarily suffer from it. The phrase is "suffering from mental illness".
      The amendment is more wide ranging than the specific matter on which the hon. Gentleman focused. Despite my personal opposition to the Bill, I cannot understand how the Government could honestly accept the amendment, because it is badly drafted and so wide ranging that it could cover any number of individuals, which I do not believe is the hon. Gentleman's intention.
      1.45 pm
      Other Lords amendments would improve the Bill, although I am not necessarily convinced that they would be a positive step toward addressing delayed discharges. Indeed, the Government might concede that on occasions. The hon. Gentleman's arguments are extremely thin and the Government could not genuinely accept such a wide-ranging amendment.
      Mr. Dawson: I shall be much more generous to the h on. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) than my esteemed and hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), because the hon. Gentleman made a good attempt at proposing something that is basically unacceptable. I do not believe that his remarks showed a total commitment to the amendment.
      The Lords amendment is appalling and should be dismissed out of hand. We should question what the other place was doing when it was tabled. It would be quite wrong specifically to exclude mental health services from the range of services that will be included—before very long, I hope—in the provisions of this first-class Bill. I recently visited Ridge Lea hospital, which is my local hospital in Lancaster, and I met people who had been living on the locked Lonsdale ward for many years. The patients and the people who care for them expressed enormous concerns about the difficulties entailed in assisting patients to move on to appropriate community services. Difficulties are encountered when liaising with social security services. It is extraordinarily difficult to ensure that the patients have appropriate places to live in the community and that appropriate support services are available.
      Some of those people lived in locked circumstances with restricted liberty. It is outrageous, and a matter of enormous worry, that people live in such circumstances for longer than their acute mental health needs require. If appropriate provisions were available in the
      964
      community, they could move there with their liberties assured. That is a fundamental human rights issue. I have no doubt that the Bill is not a universal panacea. We need considerable investment in, and new legislation for, mental health services. However, the provisions will be an enormous help for such people by ensuring that agencies are made well aware of the need to work closely together to ensure that services are available.
      I am slightly disappointed that mental health will not be one of the services to which the provisions will apply immediately. I urge hon. Members to reject the amendment, but I also urge my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me that the Government will move quickly to ensure that mental health services are included.
      Glenda Jackson: I also have concerns about the amendment. The Opposition say that mental illness services are a Cinderella service and that they are anxious that they are improved. I am perfectly prepared to accept that that is an honourable and justifiable position to take. The Government have done much to bring services for mentally ill patients out of the shadows and into the light, but I am sure that they would not want anyone to believe that the services are in full sunshine as yet. However, great improvements have been made.
      I am sure that, with the best will in the world, the Opposition want to ensure that mentally ill people receive treatment but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) pointed out, their amendment would lead to seemingly permanent incarceration behind locked doors. Such a provision would act as an active deterrent to improving mental health services for everyone.
      I have some questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. I have concerns about the definition of services that will be provided only to someone who is normally—if that is the correct word—resident in England and Wales. My concerns stem from a case in my constituency in which the mother of a family in my constituency was resident in Northern Ireland. She visited the family in my constituency, but was taken ill. She received excellent treatment from the national health service, but the family then decided that, because she lived alone in Northern Ireland, she should come to live with them. Does the provision mean that my constituents' mother will be excluded from a proper care package that is put in place by my local authority? What does "resident" mean in that context?
      When my constituents raised this case, I was concerned because people from all over the world reside in my constituency. They have the right to live in this country and they have lived here for a considerable time. They pay their taxes and are not a drain on the state. If one of their elderly relatives should visit and the same situation were replicated, would that mean that the citizens of the United Kingdom whose parents come from a country other than England or Wales would not receive proper care or would not be able to patch into the national health services that are open to the rest of the United Kingdom's citizens? Will my hon. Friend clarify the position?
      Mrs. Patsy Calton: I wish to support amendment No. 2, and I shall argue that it deserves particular consideration.
      I accept the Minister's argument that no one in the House wishes to stigmatise mental health patients or to treat them as a completely separate group. However, we are considering an imperfect Bill that deals with particularly vulnerable groups of people, such as mental health patients, who, on occasions, are not able to articulate their own needs. Therefore, particular care should be taken when they are discharged from hospital.
      I hope that the amendment will remain in the Bill. Mentally ill people and other vulnerable groups should not be among the patients for whom a charge is made.
      Ms Meg Munn: Surely the point about the process is that the patient is deemed able to be discharged at the appropriate time. Therefore, the decision that it is right for the patient to move on to more appropriate care is taken by the health care professionals who are charged with taking care of the patient's mental health. By agreeing to the amendment, we would be going against the advice of the professionals who have that responsibility.
      Mrs. Calton: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I am interested to hear that she perceives this to be a very much one-sided decision process. The reason Opposition Members are concerned about the Bill and its references to vulnerable patients is that it will speed up the process by which particularly vulnerable people are removed to the exclusion of assistance from other carers and expert advocates.
      Mr. Burns: Does the hon. Lady agree that the flaw in the logic of the intervention of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) is that, at the moment, the Government have exempted other groups from the Bill even though they may bring those groups within the Bill's ambit at a later stage?
      Mrs. Calton: A further flaw results from the fact that, as the Minister said, the Government have taken a pragmatic approach to mental health patients. For the time being anyway, they have exempted them. If the charge of stigmatisation applies, it applies to that pragmatic approach.
      I am concerned that because of the different procedures for mental health and acute discharges and because of the differences in working across health and social services, the onward journey of services users will not be facilitated by the Bill. Under the draft regulations, the local authority would not be made liable if the patient was waiting for an NHS or another community service, such as psychiatric or mental health care provision, after the care assessment, but found that service unavailable because of the lack of social care provision. The Minister and the Government cannot have it all ways. If it is now right to exempt mental health patients, it must be right at a later date unless we can be absolutely sure that all the necessary provision is available.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: My worry is that these debates increasingly tend to consider segments of care. We put
      966
      people into compartments, and that is where they remain. I intervened on the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) because I believe the Lords amendment to be flawed. For example, an elderly patient could be initially admitted to a psychiatric bed before being put into an elderly care bed in an acute hospital as they get ready for discharge. Is that person a mental health patient or not?
      Ms Munn: They might have Alzheimer's.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: As my hon. Friend suggests, Alzheimer's and a whole range of conditions lead to people being moved from an acute psychiatric environment in a general hospital to a psychogeriatric situation or to an acute ward. At what stage is someone a mental health patient? It is inconceivable that anyone could genuinely operate the Bill if it contained this amendment.
      Mrs. Calton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but the Minister has accepted that there is a problem. She has decided that there will be an exemption for mental health services and I presume that she, like the rest of us, has read the relevant section of the amendment. The arguments that have been made could be given credibility, but it would not take much more precision for the amendment to make it clear in line 10 of clause 1 that those receiving mental health services are those
      "accommodated at—

      (a) a health service hospital; or

      (b) an independent hospital in pursuance of arrangements made by an NHS body".

      The definitions already exist, and it would not need much further clarification to specify which group of particularly vulnerable patients would be affected. Again, I would add other groups of vulnerable patients—those who are not able to articulate their needs and who would require additional support in the arrangements for their discharge.
      2 pm
      The Government's national services framework for mental health identifies the lack of capacity in community mental health services, not inefficiencies in social services departments, as the key cause of delayed discharges for psychiatric patients. That will not disappear just because the Bill causes fines to be levied. There will be a tendency to rush assessments of psychiatric patients' fitness for discharge, which entails a complex package of considerations. Patients must be assessed in terms of whether they will self-harm, whether they are a risk to others, and whether they will have appropriate accommodation. It is rare that that can be worked through in a three-day period, even if all the various services are in place.
      There is no provision in the Bill for specialist advocates and for carers to take part in the discharge planning process. There is a risk that pressure to reduce prolonged hospital admissions will concentrate resources on the acute sector at the expense of community care provision. Hard-pressed councils will tend to divert resources into services that avoid penalties, instead of the longer-term preventive work

      967
      that would reduce the need for acute admissions. There is a further danger that patients discharged earlier than they should be will be given inappropriate medication to control symptoms, rather than a range of therapeutic interventions, because of inappropriate accommodation and a lack of essential support services.
      There is a basic flaw in the Government's argument that they need to make interim provision now, but are not prepared to write that into the Bill for the longer term for particularly vulnerable groups of patients.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: I shall contribute briefly, as some of the related issues will arise more naturally later in the Bill's consideration today. There were two major errors in the approach adopted by Members on the Government Benches. One was a gross caricature of what their lordships we re trying to achieve by the amendment. The other was the notion that the Bill would be of unalloyed benefit to the average patient. It is precisely because the Bill still is not patient centred that the issue arises.
      The most powerful argument to be deployed in favour of the exclusion, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) said, is the extent to which the concerns of patients and their carers are taken into account. Perhaps it is a matter of first thoughts are best, which is clearly the Government's view at present. At an earlier stage of the Bill's progress, we had some very good briefing from organisations such as the Alzheimer's Society about patients suffering from dementia and more specifically Alzheimer's, and so on. Surely patients with mental health problems, particularly severe mental health problems, will be the most vulnerable category.
      Even if there are proper arrangements for the discharge of such patients and proper consultation—we shall deal with that in more detail later—will they be able to express a view, let alone an informed view? Will the views of their carers be taken into account on their behalf? For that central reason, the official Opposition have always opposed the Bill. There are many reasons for opposing it—not least, the fact that it will not work—but the most human reason for opposing it is that it ignores the needs and wishes of individual patients. That is true in spades in respect of those with mental health problems. That is the overwhelming argument for the amendment.
      I shall not dwell on the point as we have a great deal of progress to make. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who was right to argue that we should support the Lords amendment.
      Jacqui Smith: I shall begin by responding to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) with respect to amendments Nos. 1 and 3 and the case that she described. Obviously, I do not know the details of the case, but the principle of defining ordinary residence is intended to make it clear which authorities are responsible for the necessary community care provision. The case does not have to come within the ambit of the Bill for social services to have that responsibility.
      968
      Anybody who establishes ordinary residence will be within the provisions of the Bill. That is established on the facts of the case, and can sometimes be established virtually immediately. Although that is not very clear, the answer probably is that it depends. There would not be an automatic bar against somebody who had come from abroad.
      The main point of contention was Lords amendment No. 2. Let us be clear what the Lords are proposing. It is not that there might be particular issues that make the way in which we respond to patients with mental health problems different from the way in which we respond to other patients in acute care. It is that in perpetuity we should exclude from any benefits that might come from the Bill those people with mental health problems.
      I agree with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that during the 1980s and 1990s our mental health services were underfunded and poor.
      Mr. Burns: I am saddened that the Minister is taking that tack. Given of the importance of the issue of mental health, I deliberately tried not to make my comments party political. I said, and it is a recognised fact, that over the past decade, under the last Conservative Government and under this Government, there has been a greater concentration of attention on mental health and inputting of resources for it. It saddens me if the Minister is trying to make political points, saying that the Conservatives did nothing and the present Government have done everything.
      Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman can stand or fall on the record of the Government of which he was a member. The first national service framework introduced by the Labour Government tackled the issue of mental health services, in particular linking considerable new investment to attempts to find new ways of addressing some of the problems identified by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) in relation to capacity, and to ensuring that services are available in the community to address the needs of people with mental health problems who would be better cared for in the community.
      With the development of assertive outreach teams, crisis resolution teams and early intervention teams, we see that they have an impact on the number of people who need to be admitted or to stay for longer periods in inpatient provision. It is right that we need to expand capacity and reform the way in which we offer mental health services, to make sure that provision in the community is available. Despite improved investment—£40 million worth of capital over this year and last year—and guidance leading to improved acute inpatient mental health services, there are people for whom inpatient mental health care is not appropriate and who do not want it.
      I find it hard to understand why the Lords and the Opposition, in their support for the amendment, believe that we should for ever exclude mental health patients from the benefits of the legislation. Although I was shocked to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is not the biggest fan of the Bill in the House, both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who, as a fan of the Bill, pressed me to bring mental health

      969
      within the ambit of the Bill more quickly, recognise the illogicality of for ever putting mental health outside the legislation.
      The hon. Member for West Chelmsford also made the point that those with mental health problems have suffered in the past from stigma, which has affected services. I agree, but I fail to see how ensuring that it would never be possible for those with mental health problems to come within the Bill's ambit helps to tackle that stigma. It does not.
      I do not dispute that different circumstances will apply to people with mental health problems. Of course they will, which is why we have taken the decision that the first group that we should address through the legislation are those in acute hospital care. Different considerations will apply to how we bring in those with mental health problems. As I suggested earlier, we will decide whether to extend the Bill's scope after a full and proper examination of the needs of mental health patients and the incentives in the mental health sector.
      For example, we would want to consider whether, as happens in Sweden, the level of reimbursement or the minimum compliance period should be altered to reflect any additional difficulties that might arise when assessing mental health patients or putting services in place. We would want to recognise that quite often—for example, housing services are important to those with mental health problems.

      It is not beyond the wit of the House to ensure that we would be able to recognise those specific circumstances in the future and to design the system to take those on board, and to ensure that those with mental health problems have the opportunity, when it is successful, to benefit from the Bill.
      Lord's amendment No. 2 would ensure that that was never possible and I hope that, on that basis, hon. Members will disagree with it.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Jacqui Smith.]
      The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 178.

      Division No. 119]

      [2:12 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Best, Harold

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Betts, Clive

      Ainger, Nick

      Blackman, Liz

      Alexander, Douglas

      Blizzard, Bob

      Allen, Graham

      Borrow, David

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Brennan, Kevin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Austin, John

      Bryant, Chris

      Bailey, Adrian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Baird, Vera

      Burden, Richard

      Barnes, Harry

      Burgon, Colin

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Burnham, Andy

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Benn, Hilary

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cairns, David

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Berry, Roger

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      970

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Casale, Roger

      Gilroy, Linda

      Caton, Martin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clelland, David

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Heppell, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Heyes, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Corston, Jean

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Cranston, Ross

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Crausby, David

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Cummings, John

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      David, Wayne

      Hutton, rh John

      Davidson, Ian

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jamieson, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dismore, Andrew

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Ellord, Clive

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kidney, David

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Etherington, Bill

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Farrelly, Paul

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Fisher, Mark

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      Lammy, David

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Foster, rh Derek

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lepper, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foulkes, rh George

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Linton, Martin

      971

      Love, Andrew

      Salter, Martin

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Sawford, Phil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McCabe, Stephen

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McCafferty, Chris

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacDonald, Calum

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McDonnell, John

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      MacDougall, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McFall, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McIsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McNulty, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      MacShane, Denis

      Southworth, Helen

      McWalter, Tony

      Squire, Rachel

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stevenson, George

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stringer, Graham

      Martlew, Eric

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Merron, Gillian

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Miliband, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Miller, Andrew

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Mole, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Moran, Margaret

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morgan, Julie

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Mountford, Kali

      Trickett, Jon

      Mudie, George

      Truswell, Paul

      Mullin, Chris

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      0 Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Organ, Diana

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Owen, Albert

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Ward, Claire

      Perham, Linda

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Picking, Anne

      Pickthall, Colin

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Watts, David

      Plaskitt, James

      White, Brian

      Pollard, Kerry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pound, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wills, Michael

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Winnick, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Purnell, James

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Woolas, Phil

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

      Worthington, Tony

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rooney, Terry

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ruane, Chris

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Joan Ryan

      972

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hancock, Mike

      Amess, David

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bacon, Richard

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Baker, Norman

      Heald, Oliver

      Barker, Gregory

      Heath, David

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Hermon, Lady

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Bercow, John

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Brady, Graham

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Brazier, Julian

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Breed, Colin

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burnett, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burns, Simon

      Lamb, Norman

      Burnside, David

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Burstow, Paul

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Cameron, David

      Lidington, David

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Cash, William

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Loughton, Tim

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Chidgey, David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chope, Christopher

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Maclean, rh David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Maples, John

      Curry, rh David

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mercer, Patrick

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Moore, Michael

      Doughty, Sue

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Evans, Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fallon, Michael

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Page, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Paice, James

      Flook, Adrian

      Paterson, Owen

      Forth, rh Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Francois, Mark

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Garnier, Edward

      Pugh, Dr. John

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Randall, John

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Redwood, rh John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Goodman, Paul

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Grayling, Chris

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Grieve, Dominic

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Gummer, rh John

      Ruffley, David

      Hague, rh William

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hammond, Philip

      Sanders, Adrian

      973

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Trimble, rh David

      Selous, Andrew

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Tyrie, Andrew

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

      Viggers, Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wiggin, Bill

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Willetts, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Streeter, Gary

      Willis, Phil

      Stunell, Andrew

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Mr. Robert Syms and

      Tredinnick, David

      Hugh Robertson

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

    Clause 2

      NOTICE OF PATIENT'S POSSIBLE NEED FOR COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 5, after "hospital" insert "after 1st April 2004".
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 47 and the Government motion to disagree.
      Jacqui Smith: Lords amendment No. 5 would delay for a year until April 2004 the implementation of the policy outlined in the Bill. When we announced the policy in April 2002, we were keen to implement it by April this year so that older people could benefit as quickly as possible from the improvements in services and procedures that we firmly believe the Bill will bring. They include: focus on the individual, and ensuring that people get the right care at the right time and in the right place; the introduction of incentives to invest in alternatives in the community so that older people are not trapped in hospital when they would be better treated outside; and a clear framework for partnership between health and social care locally.
      2.30 pm
      We know from the implementation team that we have established that many areas have made significant achievements since we announced the policies. The Bill has led to an unprecedented wave of activity around delayed discharge with local authority and NHS partners discussing shared problems and finding common solutions. Several areas have initiated reviews of whole systems to consider discharge processes and community service capacity so that they are well prepared for reimbursement.
      974
      Other areas have planned staff increases or co-location to speed up assessment and improve discharge planning. The Bill can therefore be considered a success already because people know that if they do not make efforts to improve discharge procedures and put services in place, they cannot benefit from the extra funding that we are transferring from the NHS. They will have to reimburse the NHS.
      Mr. Burns: Before the Minister embarks on a spinning fantasy, will she clarify the reason for her use in Committee and now of words such as "incentives", "bonuses" and "improvements", when the Secretary of State describes the penalties under the Bill as "fines"? Indeed, that is what they are.
      Jacqui Smith: Despite having been involved with the Bill for a long time, the hon. Gentleman fails to understand the principle that payment follows responsibility. His failure to understand is not my fault. When responsibility for providing services based on the individual's needs shifts from the NHS to social care, so should responsibility for payment.
      The Bill can already be considered a success and we are worried that amendment No. 5 in particular puts that at risk. One social services manager stated that in the past five years he had never witnessed so much commitment to reducing delays in the NHS and social care. That is not an isolated remark. People who attended a recent conference, which our change agents team ran, stated that, far from wrecking partnership—Conservative Members have sometimes alleged that—the pressure to improve discharge that the Bill generates led staff from the NHS and social services to discuss together, sometimes for the first time, plans to reduce delays in their local hospitals.
      There is a genuine risk that the benefits of that concentrated effort will be lost.
      Mr. John Bercow: I fear that the Minister risks creating a pervasive cynicism about the Bill—even more pervasive than that that has existed hitherto—unless she responds properly to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). If people incur a financial cost for doing something that they should not, or for failing to do something that they should, can the Minister think of a shorter or more accurate term for what they face than "fine"?
      Jacqui Smith: A fine implies that someone is not supposed to be doing something. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman does not realise that we are considering putting right a position in which all the incentives in the system are for leasing people in hospital over a longer period because the NHS effectively pays for the needs of largely older people, responsibility for which should rest with social services departments.
      If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue for cost-shunting and shifting responsibility, he should do so. The Bill aims to put matters right.
      Mr. Bercow: If the Minister will allow me, I will exercise my discretion over the language that I deploy. I would not settle for the rather down-market lexicon that

      975
      she has in mind for me. If she will not use the word "fine", why does the Secretary of State continue to do that regularly?
      Jacqui Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask the Secretary of State. My right hon, Friend and I share an understanding that at present—[Laughter.] We can laugh and banter about words, but Conservative Members should be ashamed of the underlying reason for the measure. In 1997, 6,800 people were inappropriately delayed in hospital. Our investment and reforms have reduced that number.
      Mr. Burns: It went up.
      Jacqui Smith: I should be interested to know when that happened. There is a significant reduction in the number of delayed discharges that we inherited from the previous Government. Investment and some top-down management have brought that about. We have argued that such a system is not sustainable. We need to ensure that the system includes incentives for the considerable extra investment in local authorities to be spent on alternatives that provide that older people can get out of hospital when necessary. The Bill will achieve that. As I said earlier, to some extent it already ensures that that happens. It gives an impetus to the joint working that we need and the focus on the needs of individuals when they are ready to be discharged from hospital.
      Accepting the amendments will convey the message that the work can be put on hold for a year. The impetus that has built up will be wasted and a continued and sustained reduction in waiting times for discharge will be delayed.
      We have listened to the anxieties of the NHS, local government, the voluntary sector and responsible hon. Members about the speed of implementation and the need for time for new investment in services to bear fruit. The Government have therefore proposed delaying implementation for six months until October 2003. As Lord Morris said in another place:
      "The benefits of this Bill are urgently needed and I believe it is not too late to avoid delaying their delivery … There is still time for consensus to be reached on this Bill and those it seeks to help deserve no less."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 March 2003; Vol. 646, c. 19.]
      Mr. Waterson: Will the Minister explain to a simple soul like me why it makes things better for the people who have to implement the measure in the real world to introduce it half way through a financial year? Is that sensible? What sort of chaos will that produce in the system?
      Jacqui Smith: We would have preferred to introduce the measure in April but we listened to what people in the real world said about their worries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lords."] Whether hon. Members in another place are the people in the real world is questionable, but we listened to people who operate in the real world and we shall ensure, through the delay in implementation, that the considerable extra investment from April 2003–04 makes the necessary impact without delaying, to the detriment of largely older people, the incentives that the
      976
      Bill establishes and the action that it has prompted. Those older people will benefit from the provisions and already benefit from the reduction in delayed discharge that the prospect of action has brought about. I do not understand what can be gained from delaying implementation for a year. There is something to lose from that.
      Mr. Paul Burstow: The Minister has been telling us that the Government have been listening to real people outside this place. Will she comment on why the Government chose to ignore their own consultation results, which showed that primary care trusts, social services departments and voluntary organisations of all sorts told the Government that they wanted a delay of at least a year, and to see implementation no earlier than 1 April 2004?
      Jacqui Smith: As I was explaining, we listen not only to those who provide the services, but to the people who need them. They are the older people who, in too large numbers, are being trapped in hospital when they would be better off being treated outside. We believe that the Bill will make a difference to those older people, and that is why we are keen to ensure that it is implemented as soon as possible. Of course we need to listen to the people who provide the services, but those—largely older people—who are being delayed in hospital when it would be more appropriate to treat them outside are at the heart of the Bill and of our concerns.
      Sir George Young: If it really is the view of elderly people that the Government should proceed as she has just outlined, why has Age Concern written to every Member of Parliament totally disagreeing with her?
      Jacqui Smith: Various groups have taken various positions on this, but I reiterate my view that the Bill is about ensuring that those older people who are currently not getting the deal that they deserve can get a better deal. That is why I do not believe that we have anything to gain from delaying implementation for a whole year. Indeed, as I was saying, we have something to lose. The Secretary of State announced on Second Reading, having listened to the concerns of people—particularly those in local authorities who had the responsibility of providing those alternatives in relation to community care—that, in addition to the doubling of the real rate of increase of social services funding, we would also make a transfer from the NHS to social services budgets. If implementation were delayed for a full year, councils would not receive any additional funding in 2003–04. If it were delayed for six months, and councils received £50 million for that period, they could invest that money during the first part of the year and be able to invest in the staff or services that they needed, in order to avoid reimbursement charges when the scheme is implemented.
      Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister share with the House the conclusions that the Government had reached about how they would have distributed the £100 million? Would it have been targeted at those authorities that

      977
      were doing least well in facilitating discharges from hospital, or those that were being the most effective? What decisions had the Government taken on that?
      Jacqui Smith: Depending on the progress of the Bill, we hope to be able to issue for consultation our decisions on how that would happen. The whole point of the investment is that it should facilitate the necessities contained in the legislation. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about one of the disadvantages of the considerable investment—in the form of the building care capacity grant—that has been distributed to local authorities during 2001–02 and 2002–03. We took the decision—rightly, I believe—to focus that investment on particular hot-spot authorities. That was characterised by some local authorities—wrongly, in my view—as rewarding failure, or rewarding those authorities that had not properly tackled the problems of delayed discharge. That bears heavily on our consideration of how—given the successful passage of the Bill—we should distribute the money that is being transferred from the NHS. That will be part of our consideration.
      Mr. Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She knows the high esteem in which I hold her, but I am bound to say that she has not persuaded me, she has clearly not persuaded the House and it seems uncertain whether she has yet managed to persuade herself of this argument. How many individuals or organisations have written to her to express their opposition to the idea of an implementation date of April 2004? She said that there was a miscellany of different opinions: how many, and who?
      2.45 pm
      Jacqui Smith: Nobody has written to us to oppose an implementation date of April 2004. Having said that, nobody—so far as I am aware—has written to us to oppose an implementation date of October 2003 either. People recognise that the Government have proposed a sensible delay of six months, which would maintain progress rather than stymieing it and kicking it into the long grass—as Conservative Members want to do—to the detriment of the older people who will benefit from this legislation. We must maintain the momentum, so as to build on the good progress that has been made. If we do not, the older people who are trapped in acute beds will continue to suffer.
      Conservative Members have attempted to introduce a variety of ways of wrecking this legislation, aided by their colleagues in another place. The first was to delay the implementation. The second is represented by amendment No. 47, on which I also urge my colleagues to disagree with the Lords. It is effectively a sunset clause, under which the part of the Bill that puts in place the necessary incentives would cease to have effect after five years. This is an entirely inappropriate use of a sunset clause. They are generally used only in Acts that are passed because of national emergencies or are restrictive of civil liberties. Clearly this is not such a Bill. It is, however, a Bill that the Opposition are trying to limit in every way that they can, by delaying the start and limiting its life.
      978
      The argument for this amendment in the other place appeared to be that, because the provisions in the Bill would make a difference, it was necessary to limit their life. Certainly under this Government, the majority of Bills—in fact, all the Bills that we introduce—contain elements of policy that are new, because they are intended to bring improvement and changes. Of course, all policies should be evaluated and monitored—how else can the Government ensure that they are successful, and improve them if necessary? However, we already have reliable and well-established procedures and monitoring systems in place to monitor the impact of particular policies.
      In the unlikely event that the Bill does not work in the way that we want it to, we would want to act well before the end of five years. If, on the other hand, as I expect, it drives action on delayed discharges to the point at which hardly any charges will be changing hands at the end of the five-year period, why do we need a sunset clause? Although I suspect that the good practice around planning and assessment underpinned by the Bill would continue, with or without legislation, there would be little additional activity moving funding around. However, one would not want to repeal the Act, since the possibility of charging would remain to ensure that performance on delays did not drift again. As we have heard in the interventions that have been made today, the two amendments are clearly about wrecking and limiting the effects of the Bill. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will disagree with the Lords.
      Mr. Burns: May I say from the outset that the Conservatives would like two separate votes on Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 47 at the appropriate time?
      However loveable the Minister might be, one has to admire her sense of humour and her nerve in trying to convince the House about certain issues today. I want to deal briefly with two of them. One is the ongoing battle over the question of fines. To her credit, the Minister has found every word in the thesaurus to try to describe the main thrust of the Bill, except the one word that describes it completely. That word is "fines". It is to the Minister's lasting annoyance that her Secretary of State—
      Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burns: No, I will not.
      It is to the Minister's lasting annoyance that her Secretary of State caught her out in his statement after the Budget, when he described his own legislation as "fines". Finally, on Report, the Minister herself had the honesty to use the F-word.
      Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burns: I will, although I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman has spoken as he has. I, too, read Ceefax a few days ago, when he announced to the world in bold terms that because of the Government's policy on Iraq he would not support the Government—his Government—in any Divisions on any matter.
      Mr. Dawson: That just goes to show that you should not believe all you read in the press. I am proud to support the Government on this, and on many other aspects of their legislative programme.

      979
      As the hon. Gentleman may recall, we have been around the block before. Will he put himself in the position of a nursing home owner looking after a person who need not remain in the home because his or her needs have changed, who is faced with all the costs of having to care for that person? Is nor, the use of the word "fines" entirely misplaced? We are talking about a charge for services. When the hon. Gentleman next goes to a hotel, will he expect to pay, or will he complain to the proprietor that he has been fined?
      Mr. Burns: I know that there will be a reshuffle shortly because of losses on the Government Front Bench, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that regardless of whether I believe what I read in the press, the press know what he said. I do not want to disappoint him, but I think that as a result of what he said he will not be considered by the Whip who is currently on duty, or by her colleagues, in the forthcoming reshuffle. As for his narrow point on fines, "fines" is his own Secretary of State's terminology for what the Government are doing. By all means let the hon. Gentleman be a help to the Government from the Back Benches, but let him at least be consistent with his Secretary of State.
      Let me deal briefly with a point of fact. The Minister challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about the number of detailed discharges, saying that when my Government left power in May 1997 the figure was just over 6,000 and that since her Government came to power the figure had always been lower and falling. I remind the Minister—for I too have the facts—that in 2001–02, four years almost to the day after this Government came to power, the figure was 6,361, and that in the second quarter it had risen to 7,065. She really must not try to confuse the House with spin that is not based on factual reality.
      Jacqui Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the number of people aged 75 and over whose discharges have been delayed was 3,502 in December 2002? Is that figure not less than half the 6,985 that the Government inherited?
      Mr. Burns: On the basis of parliamentary written answers I have received from the Minister, I accept that the figures have dropped. There is no secret about that. It is, however, bogus codswallop for the Minister to claim, as she did in her speech, that the result was achieved through the success of a Bill that has not even become law—although we are now used to new Labour, new spin.
      The Lords amendments are at the nub of why my colleagues and I, along with many others, oppose this nasty piece of legislation. As I am sure you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. One could list the examples, but as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), in the real world in which people look after the elderly in hospital, care homes or their own homes on a daily basis there are no friends for the Bill: it is very much an orphan. Its only supporters are the Minister,
      980
      her boss and her Back Benchers—with notable exceptions. The wise Chairman of the Select Committee does not support it, along with many other Labour Members.
      Those Members do not support the Bill because it is wrong in its intent to introduce a system of fines that will do incalculable damage to the tremendous progress that has been made over the past decade or so in getting the NHS and local authorities to work together in the whole area of care for the elderly and discharge from hospital. As has been said by many local authorities and by the Local Government Association—led by Sir Jeremy Beecham, a Labour councillor I believe—it will damage, perhaps destroy, those working relationships. It will also set the NHS against social services departments. There are better ways of legislating. Moreover, the proposals are unfair. As we all know—except, of course, the Minister, who is in constant denial because this is not good news for the Government—more than 60,000 care home beds have been lost over the past six years.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that that figure, which he keeps parroting, is completely wrong. He knows that the Health Committee, of which he is a member, came up with a figure that, although it did not accord with the Government's figure, certainly did not accord with the Tories' 50,000 figure, which has now risen to 60,000. I respect the hon. Gentleman, who does a good job on the Committee, but he must accept that sometimes we come up with the facts rather than the fiction that he has just presented.
      Mr. Burns: I respect the hon. Gentleman too. We have a mutual admiration society. If he returns to the relevant papers, however, he will be reminded that we asked the Select Committee to look into the matter and try to find a solution. The Committee said that both figures were right: my figure and the figure of about 19,000 that the Government gave about 18 months ago. The papers go on to say, though, that the Government's figure excludes the number of beds lost in the local authority sector. If the local authority figures are added to the private sector figures, we reach the figure that I have given.
      Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burns: No, because this is a timed debate and I want to make progress. Along with Lang and Buisson, an independent body, I believe that my figure is correct.
      The fines will put pressure on social services departments to bring about inappropriate and premature discharge of patients from hospitals. Already—although, interestingly, the Minister did not mention this—the rate of readmission of over-75s has increased dramatically in the last few years. Let me give the Minister the figures. There were 12,165 readmissions within seven days of discharge in the second quarter of 2001–02; the number had risen to 13,813 by the third quarter of 2002–03. That is an increase from 2.9 to 3.3 per cent. Similarly, emergency readmission rates for up to 28 days have risen from 2.9 to 4.9 per cent. By putting unfair financial penalties on the system, patients will be discharged from hospital prematurely, and will

      981
      perhaps not receive the most appropriate care. As the figures suggest, the result will be unacceptable and unfair readmittance for those patients.
      3 pm
      I believe that we must seek to bring down the level of delayed discharges. Everyone in this House accepts that having people in hospital who should not be there, and at a considerably greater expense than if they were out of hospital, is an utter waste of money; where we disagree is on the solution to the problem. To bring in a simplistic policy that sets local authority against the health service and vice versa, and which can lead to inappropriate and hasty discharges from hospital, and to readmissions, is the wrong way to proceed. I hope that many Members will join me in voting for amendment No. 5, which would postpone the introduction of this legislation by a year, to 1 April 2004.
      As a sop to Back-Bench Labour MPs who were in revolt on Second Reading, the Secretary of State announced that health service money would be made available to social services to help them pay the fines that they will incur if they fail to comply with this law. However, postponing enactment of the legislation beyond the six months proposed by Lord Hunt following the introduction of this amendment would provide a year during which the money made available by the Department of Health could be invested to improve the situation, and to minimise the problems of delayed discharge. [Interruption.] The Minister nods in a negative way. Does that suggest—[Interruption.] Nodding in a negative way may be a contradiction in terms, but that is what she was doing. Is she suggesting that if this amendment were successful and the law's introduction were to be delayed by a year, the Government would not make that money available for the financial year 2003–04? If so, that differs from what the Government have been saying so far. If not—if the money will be paid out this April—it would be better to invest the money for a year in the health service, and in local authorities and social service departments, to seek to minimise the problem of delayed discharge. Then, if we have to, we could introduce the system of fines next year, after a year of investing the money to seek to minimise the problem.
      If this legislation is as wonderful as the Minister claims, there should be a sunset clause—amendment No. 45—so that it is removed from law within five years of coming into force. The Minister asked what would happen if the problem were solved before then, but the answer is very easy for the Government. All that they would have to do is to repeal the law immediately; they need not wait for the sunset clause to take effect.
      For those reasons, we should agree with the Lords. The Government may find it difficult to believe this now, but they will believe in time that the other place has in fact done them a favour by passing these amendments. In doing so, they have provided a semblance of improvement to what, in essence, is nasty legislation.
      Glenda Jackson: As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I share some of the disquiet evinced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who chairs the Select Committee that has dealt with this Bill. In this instance, it seems somewhat less than fair to
      982
      impute blame—essentially, that is what we are doing—in respect of an elderly or frail person who is kept in hospital for an unnecessarily long time because social services have not been able to create the proper care environment past their recovery.
      I shall not rehearse the arguments that I made on Second Reading, and I am grateful to the Government for listening to the concerns that have been expressed by my own local authority and by voluntary organisations throughout London. However, in a sense, a period of six months is neither fish nor fowl, nor good red herring. There are specific difficulties, of which my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, that impact particularly on authorities such as mine, which represent inner-London boroughs. No one could argue that the borough of Camden has been lax on this issue, and I know that the Government would not attempt to do so. It is a beacon authority, and it has made extremely good use of the additional funding provided by the Government. It is assiduous in attempting to incorporate a properly constructed care package, with proper input from individuals or their carers. However, there are real difficulties in central London relating to the availability and cost of properties, and, on the most simplistic of levels, to the availability of a work force who are capable of adapting, say, an individual's private home for the necessary bathroom, shower and fitments, so that they can live within their own property. There are also grave difficulties in ensuring security of domiciliary care, when that is included in the package.
      I raise these issues—I have no doubt that the Minister is aware of them—simply to ask the Government to consider, even at this late stage, delaying the Bill's introduction. As I said on Second Reading, I know that their heart is in the right place. No one wishes to see the elderly or frail kept in hospital if an alternative location would not only probably make them infinitely happier, but ensure their future health. There are real difficulties, but there is no difficulty as far as my local authority social services are concerned in attempting to create partnerships. Indeed, they have created extremely effective partnerships not only with the national health service and the voluntary sector, but with the private sector, which they deal with in many instances, to ensure the creation of a proper care package for individuals. However, there are difficulties in ensuring that internal office systems are the same—an issue that is not exclusively the responsibility of local authorities or of the NHS.
      Solving such practical difficulties takes time, and I should point out to the Minister that it also takes money. I have my doubts about how beneficial it is to move £100 million from one aspect of the provision of care to another. However, it would be a shame if the money that the Government are investing were to be spent somewhat hastily not only because of the pressure resulting from the Bill's introduction, but because of the time pressure on the introduction of these requirements. As we know, more haste means less speed, but it also often means spending unnecessary amounts of money.
      I ask the Government to consider the points that I have made and perhaps to delay the Bill's introduction. That would address many of the anxieties experienced not only by my local authority social services department and the NHS, but, most importantly—I stress this point to the Minister—by those who care for

      983
      the elderly. They are looking for a properly structured care package, and they are anxious about the time pressure resulting not only from the Bill itself, but from its introduction. If it were possible 10 extend the period before its introduction, many of my constituents would be very grateful.
      Mr. Burstow: I agree with many of the points that have just been made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), and she probably speaks for all Members when she says that we do not want people to be stuck in hospital unnecessarily. That is absolutely the case, and we would support any measures that facilitate appropriate discharges. Our fear and our belief is that the Bill does not facilitate appropriate discharges. Some of the Minister's comments gave me the strong impression that the anxiety of the Government is not so much to secure the appropriate discharge of an elderly person as to free up a bed so as to facilitate other NHS objectives.
      Andy Burnham: What is wrong with that?
      Mr. Burstow: It is wrong if someone is discharged prematurely. That is why we have seen a massive increase—
      Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burstow: In a moment, when I have finished answering the hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention. We have seen a massive increase in emergency readmissions. Indeed, the National Audit Office, in its report on delayed discharges, identified that as a serious risk. A focus on discharges may increase the number of emergency readmissions.
      Andy Burnham: Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman appears to understand that the decision to discharge is a clinical decision, and nothing in the Bill will affect the clinical decision about when a patient may be safely discharged.
      Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Health Committee and took part in the evidence sessions. He will have heard the officials from the Department talk the Committee through the definition, and they made it clear that it was not just a clinical decision. They said that the decision to discharge was a multi-disciplinary one.
      When the National Audit Office published its report in February, after we had finished our initial consideration of the Bill, it included some interesting findings that we must consider when deciding whether we should retain the Lords amendments. Those findings make a strong case for delay so that matters may be properly considered.
      The first is the finding of the NAO about the accuracy of the measurement of delayed discharges. According to the report, the NHS finds it difficult 'to provide accurate and reliable figures. Indeed, a survey found that only 27 per cent. of NHS trusts provided figures based entirely on the definition issued by the Department. Some 22 per
      984
      cent. of trusts used only a vague approximation of the definition and 44 per cent. did not follow the definition at all and were, therefore, supplying incorrect and unreliable data to the Department. Those are the data being used by Ministers to frame their policy and to demonstrate a reduction in the number of delayed discharges. From the work of the NAO, we know that we cannot place confidence in those figures.
      The NAO report states:
      "Continued inaccuracies in this data could affect the effective implementation of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill, if it becomes law from April 2003, as the data will form the basis for calculating reimbursements payable by Councils to acute hospitals as part of the new arrangements".
      I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why she has such confidence in the figures, given the findings of the NAO.
      The other issue that I hope the Minister will consider is the Coughlan judgment and continuing NHS care. In the light of the health service ombudsman's report last month, real anxiety still exists that the guidance issued by the Department of Health in 2001 is misleading, inaccurate and does not comply with the Coughlan judgment and is, therefore, not in accordance with the law. As a consequence, people are being passed from the NHS to social services departments, where they are means-tested for their care, when they should have continued to be the responsibility of the NHS.
      I hope that the Minister will tell us more about what steps the Department will take to ensure that it issues proper guidance on delayed discharge and discharge planning to clinicians who take initial decisions about the appropriateness of discharge, so that they can make a proper assessment of any continuing health care needs. Clinicians judge not only whether the need is still acute but also whether the need is continuing. If it is, the NHS clearly has a responsibility to continue funding care whatever the patient's location after discharge. That is not clear in the present guidance or in the majority of the rules used by local health authorities to guide those who make the decisions.
      3.15 pm
      My final concern, which is picked up in the NAO report several times, relates to capacity, which has been a running theme since Second Reading. The report finds that many parts of the country—especially London and the south-east—now have occupancy rates of more than 90 per cent. in care homes. The lack of capacity means that the NHS cannot discharge patients. If the Bill were to be implemented from 1 April this year, the extra resources for social services—for which I voted—would not be available in time to bring extra capacity on stream. The issue is not only care home capacity, but home care capacity, as the NAO report confirms. There is a shortage of care home workers and new ones cannot be recruited overnight.
      For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats believe that the Lords amendments should continue to stand part of the Bill. The Lords were right and wise to say that the sun should not rise over the Bill until we have got the detailed answers to the points made by the NAO, which we have raised time and again with Ministers without receiving proper answers. I hope that the Minister will

      985
      be able to reassure us, but I will encourage my colleagues to support the retention of the sunset and sunrise clauses in the Lobby this afternoon.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: When the Bill was introduced, several Labour Members wished to consider whether it would be possible to improve it fundamentally. We had grave doubts that the mechanism in the Bill was the right one to adopt in the circumstances. The only common ground we could reach on what amendment could be made is reflected in Lords amendment No. 5, so I support it as all that could be done to improve what is not good legislation. I regret having to say that, but I made my views clear on Second and Third Reading.
      The Government have taken many steps to address is a major problem in the NHS and they have done much to improve the working relationship between the NHS and social services. The Government have produced a definition of a delayed discharge—on that point, I disagree with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), because I recall asking the previous Government about delayed discharges, but they did not even have a definition for them. It is commendable to try to establish what we mean by delayed discharge, because it is useful to know exactly what the problem is before addressing it. However, I take the point—picked up in the Health Committee's inquiry into delayed discharges—that several different approaches have been taken to the definition, which will cause problems when trying to apply a common system such as that in the Bill.
      I agreed with some of what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said a moment ago, and with virtually everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said a little earlier. I object to the common thread that appears in debates such as this—that our problems in this country could be solved by making more institutional care available. The lack of care home capacity is mentioned time and again. It saddens me that that is repeated as though it is factually correct. In this country, the problem is that far too often we have gone down the road of providing institutional care for elderly people. We have not examined how we could take concrete steps to develop alternatives.
      To be fair to the Government, they accept that. It frustrates me that other European countries not very far away provide no care homes or nursing homes at all. People in their old age are afforded much more in the way of independence and rights than elderly people in this country are offered. It is about time that we kicked into touch the nonsensical proposition that we should have more and more institutional care for old people. It is simply untrue.
      Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a good example of what he describes can be found much closer to home than Denmark? The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) completely undermined his argument about care home places when he told us how successful the Government have been in introducing partnerships and in forging partnerships between health and social care services. The public, private and voluntary sectors work really well together.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: Yes. It is also about time we recognised that a reduction in the number of care home
      986
      places is a success, providing that we are assured that the alternatives to that form of care are being developed. Far too often, colleagues in other parties assume that the way to make progress on these matters is to provide more and more institutional care in the private sector. I profoundly disagree with that.
      My hon. Friend the Minister said that there were 6,000 inappropriately delayed people in NHS beds. The Health Committee did some costings on the matter, which were very worrying. Money is being wasted that could be invested in treating the people in those beds who need treatment.
      However, as I and one or two others noted on Second Reading, it is worrying that so much emphasis is being given to delayed discharges. As I know from my own local hospital, inappropriate admissions are another significant problem. If we are applying one approach to delayed discharges, it would be inconsistent not to apply a similar approach to inappropriate admissions. I would be more convinced that the proposed mechanism was going to work if it was being applied in an even-handed way, and if it was proposed to establish a mechanism that would push costs back to the people who are making the inappropriate admissions in the first place. Why are they doing that? We need to find out.
      I want to refer to what the Health Committee has said in connection with the amendment. I hope that, on the many issues that we investigate, the Committee's comments are seen to be constructive and helpful. They are made on the basis of the evidence that we take, and on the basis of the cross-party consideration of matters. Committee members belong to different parties, and those that belong to the same party often have different views. Even so, we came to some clear conclusions on the matter, and I should like to refer to a couple of them now.
      At paragraph 162, the Select Committee states:
      "While there was some cautious support for the model"—
      that is, the model being adopted by the Government now—
      "the predominant reaction was that the proposals constituted a blunt instrument that, rather than improving partnership, would be likely to reinforce a negative blame culture. We are especially concerned that the underlying assumptions behind the charging proposals is that most delays in the system are the fault of social services. As we have emphasised throughout this report, the causes of delay are Complex and multi-factoral. It is far from clear that the issue can be resolved by such a crude solution."
      The Government's approach is a crude solution. The Committee also went on to say that it agreed
      "that appropriate incentives have a role to play, but we would also urge the development of positive incentives that reward good practice, rather than any precipitate and over-zealous emphasis on penalties. We recommend that any new schemes should be subject to piloting."
      I am sorry that the Government have not picked up on that point. The amendment that proposes a delay of a year is the nearest sensible suggestion to what the Health Committee proposed in the report.
      Finally, these problems come up time and again, in all sorts of bits of legislation. We have a go at them around the edges, but we never address the fundamental) problem—the organisational division between health and social services. In the previous Parliament, the Committee, which had a completely different

      987
      membership, came to the key conclusion that the only real solution is to integrate our health and social care systems. That requires common budgets. The Health Committee's most important conclusion in respect of delayed discharges is that we should integrate health and social services.
      I shall say no more this afternoon. I shall go and lie down now that I have made my contribution. I hope that, at some point, the Government will adopt what is increasingly the consensual opinion among people in the voluntary sector and in pressure groups—that there is a need to examine the matter radically. Once and for all, we must end the nonsensical division between these two key areas of policy.
      Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, who has been brave and consistent in his hostility to the Bill. I agree with what he said about the need to take an even-handed approach rather than just singling out social services for fines.
      I spent yesterday speaking and voting in favour of the Government, but my generosity is curtailed on reaching this Bill, which, as I said on Second Reading, is one of the worst Bills that I have ever seen. The Minister is pushing her luck. As it stands, the Bill comes into effect in April next year. Had there been a vote on Second Reading in the upper House, it would have been lost. There was only one speech in its support and there was nearly a vote, so the Government are lucky that it still exists.
      The Minister tells us that she has listened and that as a result she is delaying the Bill for six months, but when we propose a 12-month delay we are told that we are trying to wreck it. This is not a wrecking amendment. It is supported by Age Concern, the Local Government Association and several peers in another place who support the Minister's party, not mine. She says that the Bill is in the interests of older people, but I wonder whether she is the best advocate for their interests, given that we have received clear advice from Age Concern that it, too, would prefer the delay. The Bill remains fundamentally unpopular. The NHS Confederation, the organisation that it is proposed to assist, is resistant, as are the Local Government Association, the British Medical Association, the nurses and the voluntary organisations. The Bill is without friends.
      Mr. Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Sweden, whose position is cited in support of the Bill—the Government clearly have to go as far as Sweden to find anyone who might speak out in its favour—it took some two years to implement similar legislation, but in a much simpler system?
      Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. That is why several organisations have argued for piloting. Of course, if the measure were delayed for 12 months there would be an opportunity to pilot it.
      The Minister kept talking about the real world, but in reality the only world in which the Bill has any support at all is her world of Health Ministers. If one talks to anyone else, one finds that they are
      988
      fundamentally opposed to the Bill. She has produced no new arguments. The protests against the Bill are undiminished. It remains fundamentally misconceived. It puts tension where we need partnership and focuses on just one part of what should be a holistic process.
      Mr. Dawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir George Young: I will not, because the Minister should in fairness be allowed two or three minutes in which to reply. I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not support the guillotine that imposed this time scale on our consideration of the Bill.
      If the Minister is well advised, she will save the House one Division, leave Lords amendment No. 5 as it is, and thank her lucky stars that the Bill was not completely demolished in another place.
      Jacqui Smith: First, I shall respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), who identified the pressures on community care services as an argument for a longer delay than I would be happy with—I shall come back to the reasons for that later. She is right that we need to build up alternatives to hospital. We need to ensure, as has the £300 million which has been made available over a period of 18 months in preparation for the Bill, that that process allows us to build capacity in the care homes sector and to develop domiciliary care. All our evidence is that that money is already having that effect. We also base the Bill on the fact that from April we will increase investment into social services departments by 6 per cent. in real terms and that we will introduce access and systems capacity grant of £170 million—
      Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
      Jacqui Smith: No, I will not, because I am winding up. The hon. Gentleman should have stayed for the debate if he was that interested.
      The argument therefore is that we need longer in order to ensure that that money has an effect. Part of our justification for the Bill is that, in order to ensure that the extra investment is going into those community alternatives, we need to focus both on the individual and the incentives. That is what the Bill allows us to do. I repeat to hon. Members—and this was a new argument—that we now have experience from the field about the momentum that has resulted from this legislation. I hope that I will have the opportunity later of responding to some of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on continuing care.
      We have to put in place the incentives necessary to focus—
      It being three and a half hours before the moment of interruption, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].
      The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 205.

      Division No. 120]

      [3:30 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Ainger, Nick

      Cummings, John

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Allen, Graham

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      David, Wayne

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Davidson, Ian

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Austin, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Banks, Tony

      Dawson, Hilton

      Barnes, Harry

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Beard, Nigel

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dismore, Andrew

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Bell, Stuart

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Benn, Hilary

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bennett, Andrew

      Doran, Frank

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Berry, Roger

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Best, Harold

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Betts, Clive

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blackman, Liz

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      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

      Brennan, Kevin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bryant, Chris

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Flint, Caroline

      Burden, Richard

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Burgon, Colin

      Follett, Barbara

      Burnham, Andy

      Foster, rh Derek

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Cairns, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Casale, Roger

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Caton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      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, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Goggins, Paul

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clelland, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hanson, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Coleman, Iain

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Healey, John

      Corston, Jean

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Heppell, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Heyes, David

      Crausby, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hodge, Margaret

      990

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Miliband, David

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Miller, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mole, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hutton, rh John

      Morgan, Julie

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Illsley, Eric

      Mountford, Kali

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Mudie, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jamieson, David

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Organ, Diana

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Owen, Albert

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Perham, Linda

      Kemp, Fraser

      Picking, Anne

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pickthall, Colin

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Pound, Stephen

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lammy, David

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Prescott, rh John

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lepper, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purnell, James

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Linton, Martin

      Rooney, Terry

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Love, Andrew

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ruane, Chris

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Salter, Martin

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McDonnell, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacDougall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McFall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheridan, Jim

      McKechin, Ann

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McNulty, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Singh, Marsha

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Soley, Clive

      991

      Southworth, Helen

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Spellar, rh John

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Squire, Rachel

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stevenson, George

      Ward, Claire

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Watts, David

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      White, Brian

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Wills, Michael

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Winnick, David

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wood Mike (Betley)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Woodward, Shaun

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Wrignt Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Touhig, Don (lslwyn)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mr. Phil Woolas

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Allan, Richard

      Amess, David

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bacon, Richard

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Baker, Norman

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Barker, Gregory

      Doughty, Sue

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, Nigel

      Bercow, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fallon, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Flight, Howard

      Flook, Adrian

      Brady, Graham

      Forth, rh Eric

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brazier, Julian

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Breed, Colin

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Garnier, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Burnett, John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burnside, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Grayling, Chris

      Cameron, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Cash, William

      Grieve, Dominic

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gummer, rh John

      Hague, rh William

      Chidgey, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Chope, Christopher

      Hancock, Mike

      Clappison, James

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Harvey, Nick

      Collins, Tim

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Heald, Oliver

      Curry, rh David

      Heath, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      992

      Hendry, Charles

      Randall, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Redwood, rh John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Rendel, David

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Robathan, Andrew

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Howard, rh Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Robinson, Mrs lris (Strangford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Ruffley, David

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Keetch, Paul

      Selous, Andrew

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Simmonds, Mark

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

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

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lamb, Norman

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Leigh, Edward

      Streeter, Gary

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lewis, Dr, Julian (New Forest E)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Lidington, David

      Syms, Robert

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maclean, rh David

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Maclean, rh David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thurso, John

      Maples, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury and Atcham)

      Trend Michael

      Trimble, rh David

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Moore, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wiggin, Bill

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Norman, Archie

      Willetts, David

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Willis, Phil

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Paterson, Owen

      Young, rh Sir George

      Pickles, Eric

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Angela Watkinson and

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 47.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Jacqui Smith.]
      The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 203.

      Division No. 121]

      [3.44 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cummings, John

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Allen, Graham

      Dalyell, Tam

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      David, Wayne

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Davidson, Ian

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Baird, Vera

      Dawson, Hilton

      Banks, Tony

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Barnes, Harry

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Beard, Nigel

      Dismore, Andrew

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bell, Stuart

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Benn, Hilary

      Doran, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Berry, Roger

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Best, Harold

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Betts, Clive

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blackman, Liz

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Edwards, Huw

      Blizzard, Bob

      Efford, Clive

      Borrow, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brennan, Kevin

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Bryant, Chris

      Flint, Caroline

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Burden, Richard

      Follett, Barbara

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, rh Derek

      Burnham, Andy

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Cairns, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Casale, Roger

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caton, Martin

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Chaytor, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clelland, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hanson, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Coleman, Iain

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Corston, Jean

      Healey, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cranston, Ross

      Heppell, John

      Crausby, David

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Cruddas, Jon

      Heyes, David

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      994

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Merron, Gillian

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mole, Chris

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hutton, rh John

      Moran, Margaret

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Morgan, Julie

      Illsley, Eric

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Mountford, Kali

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jamieson, David

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jenkins, Brian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Olner, Bill

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Organ, Diana

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Owen, Albert

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kemp, Fraser

      Perham, Linda

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Picking, Anne

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pickthall, Colin

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Graen & Bow)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Plaskitt, James

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Pound, Stephen

      Lammy, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prescott, rh John

      Lepper, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purchase, Ken

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Purnell, James

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Linton, Martin

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

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Love, Andrew

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Rooney, Terry

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruane, Chris

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCafferty, Chris

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McDonnell, John

      Salter, Martin

      MacDougall, John

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McFall, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sawford, Phil

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKechin, Ann

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheridan, Jim

      McNulty, Tony

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      MacShane, Denis

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McWalter, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Singh, Marsha

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      995

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Soley, Clive

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Southworth, Helen

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Spellar, rh John

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Squire, Rachel

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Ward, Claire

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Stevenson, George

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Watts, David

      White, Brian

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Stringer, Graham

      Willams, Betty (Conwy)

      Stuart Ms Gisela

      Wills, Michael

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Winterlon, Ms Rosie (Doncaster c)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Mr. Phil Woolas

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Allan, Richard

      Curry, rh David

      Amess, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Bacon, Richard

      Baker, Norman

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Barker, Gregory

      Dodds, Nigel

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Doughty, Sue

      Bercow, John

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Blunt, Crispin

      Evans, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fallon, Michael

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Flight, Howard

      Brazier, Julian

      Flook, Adrian

      Breed, Colin

      Forth, rh Eric

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Foster Don (Bath)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Burnett, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Burns, Simon

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Burnside, David

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Burstow, Paul

      Gidley, Sandra

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Cameron, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Cash, William

      Grayling, Chris

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Chidgey, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Chope, Christopher

      Gummer, rh John

      Clappison, James

      Hague, rh William

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hammond, Philip

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hancock, Mike

      Collins, Tim

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      996

      Harvey, Nick

      Randall, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Redwood, rh John

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Heald, Oliver

      Rendel, David

      Heath, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hendry, Charles

      Hermon, Lady

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Howard, rh Michael

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Ruffley, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Sanders, Adrian

      Jack, rh Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Selous, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

      Keetch, Paul

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Spring, Richard

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Steen, Anthony

      Lamb, Norman

      Streeter, Gary

      Lansley, Andrew

      Stunell, Andrew

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Leigh, Edward

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Syms, Robert

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Loughton, Tim

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Maclean, rh David

      Thurso, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tredinnick, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Trend, Michael

      Maples, John

      Trimble, rh David

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mercer, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Moore, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wiggin, Bill

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Norman, Archie

      Willetts, David

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Willis, Phil

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Paterson, Owen

      Young, rh Sir George

      Pickles, Eric

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Mr. Mark Francois and

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Angela Watkinson

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4, 10 to 13, 21 and 7, 8 and 39 agreed to.

    Clause 2

      NOTICE OF PATIENT'S POSSIBLE NEED FOR COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES
      Lords amendment: No. 6.
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 9.
      Jacqui Smith: These amendments raise the crucial issue of involving and informing patients and carers during the notification under clause 2. I am sure that those hon. Members who have taken a close interest in the Bill as it has gone through its stages will be aware that I am referring to the notification from the hospital to social services that starts the process of assessment that identifies to a social services department that the hospital believes that an individual may need community care services so that it is safe to discharge him from hospital. It is an important new responsibility on hospitals to ensure that they improve communication with social services departments.
      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 to accept care or services. Those are fundamental duties that stem from the fact that they are public bodies exercising public functions. However, we noted the concerns of both Houses that there is no duty for the NHS to consult the patient prior to referring him to social services.
      Government amendment No. 9, with which I hope the House will agree, will place a duty upon the NHS to consult the patient and, where appropriate, his carer before issuing a notice to the local authority of the patient's likely need for community care services on discharge under what will be section 2. That avoids wasting the time of the NHS and social services by initiating assessments that are not required, and ensures that patients are not involved in an assessment without their prior knowledge and that of their carers.
      4 pm
      The Government amendment reinforces the existing good practice that has been built through experience and emphasised in guidance for section 47 assessments, the single assessment process and the recently published discharge workbook. All those processes are built on the premise that the patient should be kept informed and will be consulted at all stages of the assessment process. Even in the context of the Bill, how could the NHS body decide whether the patient is likely to need community care services in order to be safely discharged without consulting the patient? Lords amendment No. 9 puts the matter beyond doubt by writing the requirement into primary legislation.
      The same applies to involving carers, although the requirement to consult the carer is slightly circumscribed in that the NHS body must consult the carer only if it knows who the carer is, and if it is reasonably practicable to do so. That is to avoid placing a blanket duty on the NHS body that it cannot meet
      998
      without incurring further delay. The Government have concerns about amendment No. 6 because it is quite a different matter for the NHS to require consent before informing social services. That would be a new right that does not exist elsewhere in the NHS.
      Although to us, discussing the matter in the Chamber, consent may seem a simple, straightforward matter, it may not seem so when presented to older people. They may be confused and fearful, possibly having just had a fall and having come into hospital by ambulance. They may not have any experience of social services or know what an assessment entails, and may not feel able to give consent. The amendment would mean that that had to happen before social services could be involved.
      In situations where older people are not able formally to give or withhold consent, it is important that health and social care professionals can begin talking to the patient, explaining options, understanding their home situation and forming a view about what services they may need for a safe discharge. None of that could happen if the NHS could not notify social services without clear and informed consent to notification. A week or more could go by and the patient might nearly be ready for discharge before they felt ready to give a definite yes, which by that time would probably be a yes to social services providing services.
      Many people have rightly argued for faster and more timely assessment. The difficulty with amendment No. 6 is that it could work against that. The Bill does not prevent a patient from refusing to co-operate with the NHS or social services in assessment; that is their human right. But it would be deeply counterproductive to give a person the right to prevent the NHS from taking the first step to inform local authorities that, for their own well-being and safety, there may be a need for social services. Most importantly, it would do nothing to ensure that people receive the appropriate care and support when they need it and in the right setting. To add the need for consent would require extra and unnecessary bureaucracy, requiring the NHS to gain, record and pass on the record of that consent to social services.
      Ms Munn: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 came into force, many social services and health authorities have had in place systems whereby, as soon as a person is admitted to hospital, the relevant social services authority is notified that an assessment will be needed, so that the procedures can quickly be put in place? Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment would cause considerable difficulties for authorities that already have sound, quick procedures that operate effectively?
      Jacqui Smith: As we have seen from previous debates, my hon. Friend understands the real world in this matter and she has put her finger on the difficulty. We recognise the need to ensure that patients are consulted about a notification of their needs going to social services. That seems reasonable, and the Government amendment will ensure that that happens. However, we fear that the Lords amendment could put a spoke in the wheel of the sensible arrangements to which my hon. Friend refers, and that would not achieve what all of us want to see, which is a more timely and appropriate assessment for

      999
      people in hospital in order to provide them with the necessary support. As I emphasised earlier, people will still have the right not to participate in that assessment and to refuse the services, but to place individuals and organisations in a position where they have to obtain full consent before a notification could even take place would not deliver the sort of improvements that we want.
      Mr. Burstow: I want to persuade the House that it should not agree with the Minister but instead should agree with Lords amendment No. 6, and I shall explain why.
      First, I welcome Lords amendment No. 9 because it provides a movement in the direction that I think hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to see, recognising the need for a process that ensures that carers and patients are consulted.
      The crux of the debate is about whether consent puts a spoke in the wheel, or whether it should be a legitimate part of the Bill. Many hon. Members, and many people outside the House, are concerned that, by not referring at all to patients' rights in terms of being consulted or being able to exercise their right to informed consent, the Bill is not patient centred. In many ways, the Bill could be described, uncharitably perhaps, as regarding patients as passive recipients of a process of care, establishing a process and set of mechanisms whereby they are merely passed from one authority to another. I do not think that that is what it should be about.
      In Lords amendment No. 6, my noble Friends in the other place sought, I think succinctly, to include in the Bill the much-needed right of carers to be consulted, which is important, not least in the light of research by Carers UK, which found, when it surveyed carers on their experiences of delayed discharge and the management of a person's discharge, that their views were taken into account less in 2002 than they had been in 1998. It is on that basis that I and my noble Friends came to the conclusion that simply relying on the hospital's discharge workbook would not be enough. It may well contain excellent practice or good practice, but we want clear law, not just guidance, to NHS and other practitioners.
      The amendment seeks to place a proactive duty on the NHS and social services to offer assessments of care to carers, not just to wait for the carer to ask. That was an important concern that we had when the Bill left this place.
      The other point that the amendment seeks to raise, which the Minister did not really address, concerns mental capacity. The Minister referred to that at least in passing by suggesting that professionals would be hamstrung if they were unable to obtain informed consent. Yet the reality is that the amendment would include in the Bill a requirement that, where a person lacks the mental capacity to give such consent, a record should be placed on the file of the steps taken to ensure the patient's best interests. That places on record within the NHS the process by which the clinicians came to a decision that it was in the person's best interest for social services to be involved and for other decisions to be made.
      1000
      As we do not have in our law a recognition of mental incapacity in respect of a person's right to advocacy or surrogate decision making in terms of health care, this is a way of encouraging the Government to consider the matter now, because it is an integral part of making the Bill effective and patient centred. That is why we make the proposal.
      To conclude, I want to touch on one other issue. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will be prepared to consider finding a way by which further amendments can be made to address this concern. That is what my noble Friends were seeking to achieve, and that was the opportunity that they presented. I regret that that opportunity has not been taken. There is a serious issue in relation to how we ensure that those who do not have capacity can have their wishes reflected on, acted on and properly documented, and how those who do have capacity can have a say on whether they wish social services to intervene and make an assessment of their needs. Surely that is their right, although, currently, the Bill does not reflect that. I hope that hon. Members will establish that right clearly in the Bill today, and not accept the Government's dissent from the amendment.
      Glenda Jackson: I have listened to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Minister. Although I am not necessarily especially moved by the Lords amendments, I would like to mention some issues that have been raised with me by constituents in relation to health professionals and social services listening to carers, as well as the issue of mental capacity, which has been touched on.
      I know that the Government have made major moves in relation to incorporating the opinions of carers when creating a truly effective care package for an individual. I hope, however, that they will consider a problem, which, although not massive, is real for the individuals and families concerned, and which has caused difficulties in my constituency. The problem is that, on some occasions, health service professionals and, in other instances, social services suddenly get very exercised about issues of confidentiality, which seems to me to be absolutely unacceptable.
      In the case of someone who has a mental incapacity, it is very unusual in my borough of Camden for there not to be an extremely efficient, caring advocate, whether that is an official or someone who has simply taken it on themselves to become a carer for an elderly person without a family. If the issue of confidentiality is raised, however, and that involves the input of the individual carer—whether a family member or an advocate for someone with a mental incapacity—it slows the system down. Under the Bill, there can be fines— [Interruption.] I know that my hon. Friend the Minister does not like that word. None the less, financial penalties can be incurred if there is what is deemed to be a delay in the discharge. It may be that the issue of confidentiality is being exercised because people believe that that is in the best interests. Indeed, sometimes, they may erroneously believe that they will be infringing some kind of ethical, if not legal, embargo.
      I understand the Government's arguments against the Lords amendment, but I ask them to consider this issue. I am happy to furnish my hon. Friend the Minister with anecdotal evidence from my constituency, as the

      1001
      Government should be aware of it. As I have said, not only can the process be delayed but real difficulties can be caused for families, for the individual for whom they are caring, and, most particularly, for those who suffer from a mental incapacity, in relation to their advocate. It is not unusual, in the first instance, for attempts to be made to sideline their contribution. Importantly, too, those people who are closely engaged with an individual can offer good ideas as to what would be the best possible care package for that person.
      Although I will not vote for the Lords amendment, I hope that my hon. Friend will take on board the points that I have made, and I am happy to provide her with even more details if they can be of help.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Waterson: I shall be brief because we have much ground to cover. The basic challenge to any Opposition is the extent to which they should strive to improve a measure that is fundamentally unimprovable. However, the central objection has always been that the Bill is not patient centred. Almost everybody in the world, except Health Ministers, takes that view. It is a tribute to the sustained opposition from all quarters, not only parliamentary, that the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming towards at least nodding in the direction of patients.
      The Minister claims that the amendment would grant a new right that does not exist in the NHS. She may be right. However, the Government are taking some draconian new powers, which do not yet exist, over the NHS and social services. It is only fair that those powers, which are misconceived and bound to trigger the law of unintended consequences, are counterbalanced by stronger rights for patients.
      In an ideal world, consultation would mean an unhurried attempt to sit down with the patient, carer or both, discuss the options, ensure that the patient has all the available information, and reach a consensus. However, how can we guarantee that in the real world? The only way is to include the word "consent" in the Bill. There would thus be an absolute requirement to obtain the consent—hopefully informed—of a patient or carer before the shift to some other form of care.
      In the majority of cases, obtaining consent should not present a problem. All too often, the patient clamours to get out of hospital into more appropriate care. However, in a small minority of cases, there will be a clash of views between the patient, the family, the carers and the aims of the health professionals. Those aims will be driven by the financial penalties—incentives, as the Minister calls them, fines as everybody else, including the Secretary of State refers to them—that the Bill imposes.
      It would be churlish not to welcome the Government's deathbed conversion to the patient having some role. Until now, the patient has been regarded as a commodity, to be shunted back and forth in the system as rapidly as possible in a bizarre game of pass the parcel to ensure that whoever has the patient when the music stops pays a fine. For once, the Government are beginning to acknowledge that a patient plays a genuine role in the process.
      1002
      It is only fair to record that Age Concern has welcomed the Government's comments about consultation, guidance and so on. However, Age Concern is not alone in the view that it expressed in its latest briefing, which states:
      "Age Concern believes that it is essential that older people have the right to agree to their care package and that this requirement is explicitly spelt out on the face of the Bill."
      That does not mean setting out a requirement in regulations or guidance.
      Ms Munn: Community care legislation has been in place for nearly 10 years. Expectations about agreement to care packages have also existed for that time. We are not discussing anything that is new or relates specifically to the issues that the Bill tackles.
      Mr. Waterson: If that is a point in favour of patient consent and agreement between everyone, who am I to disagree? Of course, there should be agreement, and I said that the problem will affect only a minority of cases.
      Age Concern's briefing, reflecting the point that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made, continues:
      "This is especially important with this Bill which will allow information to be passed from one authority to another (NHS to local authorities)."
      The hon. Lady was right. Problems with confidentiality may slow down the process. That is not a matter for us; it is for Ministers and civil servants to tackle so that there is no extra cause of delay. Age Concern concludes:
      "We strongly urge MPs to keep this requirement on the face of the Bill."
      I think that Age Concern is absolutely right.
      The combined opposition to the Bill from within and outside Parliament has persuaded the Government to look at the rights of patients. They have not gone far enough down that road, however. They should go the whole hog and withdraw their opposition to this eminently sensible and fair Lords amendment.
      Jacqui Smith: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) first. Most of his contribution was about consenting to a care package. He has, therefore, misunderstood the section of the Bill that we are discussing. The two amendments in question relate to the process whereby the NHS body, the hospital, notifies social services that someone might need community care services, thereby starting the process of assessment. We have not yet reached the question of the care package, although I hope that we shall do so when we discuss the next two groups of amendments. It would, therefore, have been better if the hon. Gentleman had saved some of his arguments for later.
      I reiterate the point that I raised earlier about amendment No. 9, which is that it ensures that, even before that notification happens, the patient and carer will need to be consulted about the fact that the assessment process has started. That is an important step forward.
      Mr. Burstow: I want to seek clarity on amendment No. 9, in which paragraph (b) refers to the

      1003
      circumstances in which carers should be consulted if it is "reasonably practicable" to do so. Will the Minister amplify what would be meant by "reasonably" in those circumstances, so that we can help those outside who will have to live with this amendment in future?
      Jacqui Smith: As I started to outline in my introduction, this provision is intended to avoid a situation in which an inability to find a carer—perhaps because a patient was not clear about who their carer was, for example, or because the carer was away or uncontactable at the relevant time—would put a brake on the ability to notify social services and start the assessment. In such circumstances, we would not want the notification of the assessment to stop.
      The point of difference between us is whether we should make it a requirement for the patient to consent to the notification of social services to start the assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) raised some important issues about capacity—as did the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—and confidentiality, which seemed to go to the heart of the need to have in place a better way for those without capacity to have determined in advance who might take these decisions on their behalf. I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) is on the Front Bench today to hear these concerns. Hon. Members will be aware that the Lord Chancellor's Department is currently working on draft legislation on incapacity, and I understand that my hon. Friend has also set up a mental incapacity forum to deal with some of these issues. The Government are, therefore, considering them in detail.
      To return to the crux of the matter of obtaining consent, I would ask hon. Members to imagine the position in which we might place a hospital if, for example, someone had come in following an accident in which they had fallen over and were confused, and it was clear that they would almost certainly need community care services in order to be able to be discharged from hospital. Under amendment No. 6, the patient would have to give their informed consent before the social services could even be notified to start the process. My concern is that, for a variety of reasons, they might not be able to do that. In addition, all the bureaucracy involved in obtaining consent would, in such a case, increase the period of time between the patient being admitted and social services being informed of the possible need for care. That could reduce the time available to social services departments to plan and arrange a care package.
      Nothing changes the fact that patients need not co-operate with assessments. They can refuse the package offered to them. Nevertheless, professionals must be involved at every stage to ensure that patients understand the consequences of refusing care, rather than a box being ticked for "consent given" or "consent not given".
      While it is unlikely to add to the process of consulting patients, what is proposed in the amendment might add to both the problems involved and the time taken before
      1004
      health and social care professionals can start working together to assess people's needs and to ensure that the necessary services are available. I hope that Members will disagree with Lords amendment No. 6, and agree with Lords amendment No. 9.
      Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 198.

      Division No. 122]

      [4:25 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Ainger, Nick

      Corston, Jean

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cousins, Jim

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Allen, Graham

      Cranston, Ross

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Crausby, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cummings, John

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Banks, Tony

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Barnes, Harry

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dalyell, Tam

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benn, Hilary

      David, Wayne

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Berry, Roger

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Betts, Clive

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blackman, Liz

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dismore, Andrew

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Borrow, David

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Doran, Frank

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bryant, Chris

      Edwards, Huw

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Efford, Clive

      Burden, Richard

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burgon, Colin

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Burnham, Andy

      Etherington, Bill

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Cairns, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Casale, Roger

      Follett, Barbara

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, rh Derek

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Chaytor, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gardiner, Barry

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clelland, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Goggins, Paul

      Coaker, Vernon

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cohen, Harry

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hain, rh Peter

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      1005

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McDonnell, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      MacDougall, John

      Hanson, David

      McFall, John

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McKechin, Ann

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Healey, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McWalter, Tony

      Heppell, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Heyes, David

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Merron, Gillian

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Miliband, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mole, Chris

      Hutton, rh John

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Moran, Margaret

      Illsley, Eric

      Morgan, Julie

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Mountford, Kali

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jamieson, David

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jenkins, Brian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Olner, Bill

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Organ, Diana

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      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)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Plaskitt, James

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Pollard, Kerry

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Lammy, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lepper, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purchase, Ken

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Purnell, James

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Linton, Martin

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

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

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Rooney, Terry

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ruane, Chris

      McCafferty, Chris

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      1006

      Salter, Martin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Trickett, Jon

      Sawford, Phil

      Truswell, Paul

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheridan, Jim

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Ward, Claire

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      White, Brian

      Soley, Clive

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Spellar.rh John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Squire, Rachel

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Starkey Dr. Phyllis

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wills, Michael

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wilson, Brian

      Stevenson, George

      Winnick, David

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Winterton, Ms Rosle (Doncaster C)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wood Mike (Batley)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Woolas, Phil

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Wright David (Telford)

      Taylor, rh Ann (DewsburY)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Timms, Stephen

      Mr. Ivor Caplin

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Chope, Christopher

      Allan, Richard

      Clappison, James

      Amess, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Curry, rh David

      Bacon, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Baker, Norman

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Barker, Gregory

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bercow, John

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Doughty, Sue

      Blunt, Crispin

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Boswell, Tim

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Evans, Nigel

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Brazier, Julian

      Breed, Colin

      Flight, Howard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Flook, Adrian

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Forth, rh Eric

      Burnett, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burns, Simon

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Burstow, Paul

      Francois, Mark

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Cameron, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Carmichael, Alistair

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Cash, William

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Chidgey, David

      Goodman, Paul

      1007

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Paterson, Owen

      Grayling, Chris

      Pickles, Eric

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Gummer, rh John

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Hague, rh William

      Randall, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Redwood, rh John

      Hancock, Mike

      Rendel, David

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Harvey, Nick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Heald, Oliver

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Heath, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Ruffley, David

      Hermon, Lady

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Shephard rh Mrs Gillian

      Howard, rh Michael

      Simmonds, Mark

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

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

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Keetch, Paul

      Spring, Richard

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Boss Skye & Inverness)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Steen, Anthony

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Streeter, Gary

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Stunel1, Andrew

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Swayne, Desmond

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Swire, Hugo (E Dewn)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Syms, Robert

      Lait Mrs Jacqui

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lamb, Norman

      TaYlor, Ian (Esher)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, John(Solihull)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Thurso, John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Lidington, David

      Trimble, rh David

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Turner Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Maclean, rh David

      Waterson, Nigel

      McLoughhn, Patrick

      Watkinson, Angela

      Maples, John

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Whittingdale, John

      Wiggin, Bill

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Wilkinson, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Willetts, David

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Moore, Michael

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Willis, Phil

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Norman, Archie

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Young, rh Sir George

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Page, Richard

      Mr. Alan Reid and

      Paice, James

      Richard Younger-Ross

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 9 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 14.
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 15 and Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 16 and Government motion to disagree thereto and Lords amendment No. 18 and Government motion to disagree thereto.
      Jacqui Smith: Although I am proposing that we disagree with the Lords in these amendments on the important issue of informing and involving patients and carers in the performance of the social services assessment and decisions about which services are to be provided, I hope that I can give hon. Members some reassurance that the Government have gone even further than the aspirations expressed in the Lords amendments in what we propose to do.
      Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 propose that local authorities should consult patients and carers during the assessment of community care needs and obtain their consent to the care plan. Amendment No. 16 would further require the local authority to inform patients of the costs of this care.
      It is clear in clause 3(11) that this assessment and care planning process is part of the section 47 assessment process and that it is therefore one stage, or part, of the single assessment process. By singling out this assessment and care planning process from all other section 47 assessments and care planning, we would differentiate the process under this Bill from all other processes of assessment and care planning. That would include processes outside the hospital and those applying to other patients in the hospital who do not happen to be "qualifying patients" according to the terms of the Bill.
      We are very clear that there should be no difference in the type or standard of assessment to which a person is entitled, whether they are assessed in hospital or in their own home. I do not believe that that is what the amendments are designed to achieve. I would have thought that if it was necessary to reiterate these steps here—although they are set out already in statutory guidance for both section 47 assessments and the single assessment process—then it must be necessary for all assessments, not just for those in this Bill. We have always been clear that the Bill should not affect the underlying substantive law, and we would not want to agree an amendment that did just that.
      Similarly, it has always been the case that care plans prepared as a result of a section 47 assessment should be agreed by the user. That point was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn). Providing information about costs of care services is covered specifically in the section 7 guidance to local authorities on the single assessment process. Furthermore, it was covered in the statutory guidance on section 47 assessment that was issued to accompany the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
      With respect to assessments carried out under section 47, case law is already clear that the local authority must make reasonable efforts to provide patients with their

      1009
      chosen options, as long as there are no resource implications to prevent that. In reality, it would not be possible for the local authority to do that without having first consulted the patient to ascertain how he or she bout the various choices available.
      The Bill makes no difference to a patient's rights with respect to consent. Patients have an existing right not to consent to receiving the services that social services has assessed them as needing. Clearly, neither the NHS nor social services has a right to force services upon a patient who does not want to receive them.
      Of course, good practice will dictate that patients should be kept informed and that they should be consulted at all stages of the discharge process. The revised hospital discharge workbook has a chapter specifically on patient and carer involvement. We will expect both NHS and social services staff to follow it. The statutory guidance for the Bill will also make it plain that patients and their carers and family are to be kept fully informed and consulted throughout the discharge process.
      It is a slightly different case in terms of a carer's assessment, which is actually triggered by a request from the individual carer. There can therefore be no question of consent to the assessment, since it is implicit in the request for an assessment that the person involved has consented. In terms of agreeing the carer's plan, the statutory guidance is clear—the plan must focus on what the carer wants to happen, and agreement, or any differences between carer and assessor, are recorded and a copy provided to the carer. Moving away from this arrangement, as suggested in the amendment, would differentiate carers' plans from others. The amendment would make these plans less responsive to the carer's wishes than other carers' assessments carried out under section 2 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000.
      However, as I suggested earlier, I understand that the first three amendments in this group are trying to strengthen the arrangements around assessment and care planning. I hope that I made it clear that, if that is needed, it should be all section 47 assessments, regardless of where or when they take place.
      Section 47(4) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 contains a power for the Secretary of State to issue directions as to the manner in which assessment is carried out. I can confirm, therefore, that we will issue a direction under this power to make it clear that the local authority, having assessed the needs of the patient, should consult the patient before deciding which services to provide. Where possible, it should gain agreement to the care plan, and provide information about the costs of that care plan.
      That direction would apply to all section 47 assessments. It would not create the divergence that these amendments would create, but I hope that it offers some reassurance to the House that these important issues are being addressed.
      Mr. Burstow: Some of the issues that we are debating under this group of amendments are a re-run of those that we debated a few moments ago, so many of my previous arguments also apply. We are now talking about the care planning process, as opposed to whether consent should be passed on social services in the first place.
      1010
      4.45 pm
      I listened with interest to the Minister's comments to the effect that the amendments that were tabled by my noble Friends and other noble Lords cover only one particular stage of the assessment process, and I welcome her suggestion that the Government will issue section 7 guidance to apply these matters to all stages of the assessment process under section 47. However, if the Government are now minded to do that, would it not have been easier to table an amendment to the Bill to place it beyond doubt that it was part of the law of the land and a requirement on parties to assessment processes, whether they be NHS bodies, social services departments or any others? Although I find the measure a helpful step forward, it does not sufficiently answer my concern, or that of my noble Friends, that the provisions that we should like to be included in the Bill are not yet there. The amendments are intended to ensure that the issues of consent and mental incapacity are addressed fully and clearly in the Bill. For that reason, we particularly want to press amendments Nos. 14 and 18 to a vote so as to test the opinion of this House before the Lords considers the matter again.
      My other question relates to the section 7 guidance that is to be issued. In the other place, Lord Hunt said that it was intended that a clear guidance or direction should be issued to the national health service in respect of continuing care assessments, that it would be put in writing as part of the process and that it would have to take place before a section 2 notice could be issued. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case, and can she explain why the provision is not included in the Bill, where it would be much clearer to all of us?
      I shall certainly wish for votes on amendment Nos. 14 and 18, and I hope that the Minister can respond to my queries.
      Glenda Jackson: The two issues that I should like to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister have essentially to do with consent. In my experience from my constituency, a carer will often find the health professional's definition to be simply incomprehensible. There is far too little movement in terms of the ability of health professionals to translate clinical assessments into the kind of English that most people would understand. That is particularly pertinent when the carer is also elderly.
      The other issue concerns consent. It is not unusual for an elderly person who has been in hospital to be absolutely desperate to go home and absolutely to refuse any kind of alternative. That can often place an enormous burden on their carer, who, as I said, may be of an equal age. The individual concerned may be going back to a home that is completely inappropriate to their new needs. It is therefore not unusual for the idea of a temporary convalescent home—I still call them that, although I know that the situation has changed—to be presented so that the necessary adaptations to the family home can be undertaken. However, such homes can be a long way from where people live. Often, for the best of reasons to do with consent, the individual may place a terrible burden on their carer. Indeed, it is not unusual for the carer to end up in hospital.

      1011
      I am not being quite as precise as I would like to be, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has picked up what I mean. There can be a fine line. Without wanting there to be a kind of prison state, I would like, when consent is given by the social services and the NHS to what the patient wants, better explanations to be given to the individual and their carer of the possible repercussions if the only proposal that is acceptable to the individual is to go immediately from hospital to home.
      Mr. Burns: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I wish to speak to Lords amendment No. 16, which was successfully passed in the other place. It deals with clauses 2 and 3, which are to do with the determination of need for community care services on discharge. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that that is the nuts and bolts of this legislation. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, clause 2, under the heading of
      "Notice of patient's possible need for community care services",
      gives the background rules, regulations and legislation. Clause 3, to which Lords amendment No. 16 refers, goes into greater detail on what has to be done during the process. The amendment seeks simply to add to the duties that the responsible authority must carry out. Clause 3(3)(a) says that the responsible authority must
      "carry out an assessment of the patient's needs with a view to identifying any community care services that need to be made available".
      Clause 3(3)(b) says that the authority must,
      "after consulting the responsible NHS body, decide which of those services … the authority will make available for the patient."
      This amendment specifies that, before making a decision under clause 3(3), the responsible authority should have certain duties to carry out to give more power and involvement to the patient and carer. There are straightforward common-sense things that I would assume that no one would disagree with—although I may be proved wrong. For example, there is the duty to
      "consult the patient and his carer, if he has one";
      the duty to
      "inform them of the cost of the proposed care plans";
      and the duty to
      "obtain the consent of the patient".
      Those duties are an important improvement to the legislation and I hope that the Minister, having had time to reflect since the amendment was passed in the other place, will come round to the logic and advantages of accepting it. If she is not prepared to accept it, I will ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether I may press it to a Division. I hope that it will not come to that. Even at this late stage, I hope that common sense will prevail and that the Minister will think again.
      Jacqui Smith: I have a slight feeling that hon. Members are looking a gift horse in the mouth. Most of what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was arguing for represented good practice that would be desirable in the assessment of the provision of services. However, if the duties that he spoke about were put into the Bill, they would apply only to assessments
      1012
      that came under this legislation—in other words, to assessments relating to the services necessary for people to be safely discharged from hospital.
      The argument that I obviously failed to get over in my introduction was that, if those things are important in relation to one part of a section 47 assessment, they are important in relation to all section 47 assessments. That is why I said that we would issue legally binding directions which would make it clear that the local authority, having assessed the patient's needs, should consult the patient before deciding which services to provide, gain agreement to the care plan where possible and provide information about the cost of the care plan. That would apply to all section 47 assessments and would also cover the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), who was rightly concerned about the extent to which both carers and patients could engage in and understand the assessment process and the services provided.
      The directions will make much more explicit what is expected and the process that should be undertaken.
      Mr. Burstow: The Minister seems to be arguing that it would not be possible to apply those important consent and consultation changes to all aspects of the assessment process. Surely the long title of the Bill has been drafted so widely that it would allow the Government to make precisely the amendments that the Minister intends to introduce under a section 7 direction. Would not it be better to include such provisions in the Bill?
      Jacqui Smith: I was talking not about section 7, but about legally binding directions. We have already argued about whether our proposals would make the procedure more flexible—I think that they would. For example, they would enable us to introduce other changes in the future; but if the provisions were in the Bill such changes would necessarily be more difficult to make, due to the times at which we can change primary legislation.
      Mr. Burns rose—
      Jacqui Smith: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) about continuing care criteria, in case I do not have the chance to do so later.
      I can confirm that we shall issue a direction requiring a continuing care assessment before the section 2 notice is issued and that regulations will require that to be confirmed in a section 2 notice. That direction will be legally binding and will have the same force as if it was a provision under the Bill, but it will be easier to change in the light of experience. It will place an important legal responsibility on the NHS to carry out continuing care assessments before the local authority is notified. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been concerned about that point.
      Mr. Burns: Will the Minister give us some clarification about Lords amendment No. 16 so that there are no mistakes or misunderstandings? Did she say that the

      1013
      legally binding direction for the guidance would categorically and comprehensively include all the elements of Lords amendment No. 16? Will the amendment thus be irrelevant, because the Minister is dealing with the matter under legally binding guidance? Yes or no?
      Jacqui Smith: I spelt out what the guidance would cover. If the hon. Gentleman is actually pushing me on the issue of consent, I also said that the Bill makes no difference to patients' rights in respect of consent. Patients already have the right not to consent to services that social services departments have assessed them as needing. Neither the NHS nor social services departments has the right to force services on a patient who does not want them.
      Our proposals for continuing care would strengthen responsibility during the whole assessment process, before social services were even involved. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree to reject the amendment.
      Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 202.

      Division No. 123]

      [4.59 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ainger, Nick

      Casale, Roger

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Caton, Martin

      Allen, Graham

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Banks, Tony

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clelland, David

      Benn, Hilary

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Coaker, Vernon

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Berry, Roger

      Cohen, Harry

      Best, Harold

      Coleman, Iain

      Betts, Clive

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Corston, Jean

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cousins, Jim

      Blunkett, rh David

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Cranston, Ross

      Borrow, David

      Crausby, David

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cummings, John

      Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bryant, Chris

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Burden, Richard

      David, Wayne

      Burgon, Colin

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Burnham, Andy

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Dawson, Hilton

      Cairns, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      1014

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Doran, Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Doughty, Sue

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kidney, David

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Edwards, Huw

      Efford, Clive

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Etherington, Bill

      Lammy, David

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Flint, Caroline

      Lepper, David

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Follett, Barbara

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lidded, rh Mrs Helen

      Linton, Martin

      Foulkes, rh George

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Love, Andrew

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Gerrard, Neil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCafferty, Chris

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Goggins, Paul

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McDonnell, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      MacDougall, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McFall, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hanson, David

      McIsaac, Shona

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McKechin, Ann

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      MacShane, Denis

      McWalter, Tony

      Healey, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heppell, John

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Heyes, David

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Miliband, David

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Miller, Andrew

      Mole, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Moran, Margaret

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Morgan, Julie

      Hutton, rh John

      Mountford, Kali

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Mudie, George

      Illsley, Eric

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jamieson, David

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      O'Hara, Edward

      1015

      Olner, Bill

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steinberg Gerry

      Organ, Diana

      Stevenson, George

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Owen, Albert

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Perham, Linda

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Picking, Anne

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Pickthall, Colin

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Stringer, Graham

      Plaskitt, James

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pound, Stephen

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Prescott, rh John

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Trickett, Jon

      Purchase, Ken

      Truswell, Paul

      Purnell, James

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

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

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Vis, Dr, Rudi

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rooney, Terry

      Ward, Claire

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Watts, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Salter, Martin

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wills, Michael

      Sawford, Phil

      Wilson, Brian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Woolas, Phil

      Singh, Marsha

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Squire, Rachel

      Charlotte Atkins

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Allan, Richard

      Amess, David

      Brady, Graham

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Brazier, Julian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Breed, Colin

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Bacon, Richard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Baker, Norman

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Barker, Gregory

      Burnett, John

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Burns, Simon

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Burnside, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cameron, David

      Bercow, John

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cash, William

      Blunt, Crispin

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Boswell, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Chidgey, David

      1016

      Chope, Christopher

      Lamb, Norman

      Clappison, James

      Lansley, Andrew

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Leigh, Edward

      Collins, Tim

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Lidington, David

      Curry, rh David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Loughton, Tim

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Maclean, rh David

      Dodds, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Maples, John

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Evans, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fallon, Michael

      Mercer, Patrick

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Flight, Howard

      Moore, Michael

      Flook, Adrian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Forth, rh Eric

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Norman, Archie

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Francois, Mark

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Garnier, Edward

      Ottaway, Richard

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Page, Richard

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Paice, James

      Gidley, Sandra

      Paterson, Owen

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Pickles, Eric

      Goodman, Paul

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Grayling, Chris

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Randall, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Redwood, rh John

      Gummer, rh John

      Rendel, David

      Hague, rh William

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hancock, Mike

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Harvey, Nick

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Heald, Oliver

      Ruffley, David

      Heath, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hendry, Charles

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hermon, Lady

      Selous, Andrew

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Simmonds, Mark

      Horam, John (Orpington)

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

      Howard, rh Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hunter, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jack, rh Michael

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spring, Richard

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Steen, Anthony

      Keetch, Paul

      Streeter, Gary

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Syms, Robert

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      1017

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wilkinson, John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Willetts, David

      Thurso, John

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Willis, Phil

      Trimble, rh David

      Wilshire, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Young, rh Sir George

      Watkinson, Angela

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whittingdale, John

      Richard Younger-Ross and

      Wiggin, Bill

      Mr. Alan Reid

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      It being less than two hours before the moment of interruption, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of business at that hour, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].
      Lords amendment No. 15 disagreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 16.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Jacqui Smith.]
      The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 203.

      Division No. 124]

      [5.15 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cairns, David

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Allen, Graham

      Caplin, Ivor

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Casale, Roger

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Caton, Martin

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clapham, Michael

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Baird, Vera

      Banks, Tony

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Benn, Hilary

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bennett, Andrew

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cohen, Harry

      Berry, Roger

      Coleman, Iain

      Best, Harold

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Betts, Clive

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blackman, Liz

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Corston, Jean

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cousins, Jim

      Blunkett, rh David

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Cranston, Ross

      Borrow, David

      Crausby, David

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cummings, John

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bryant, Chris

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dalyell, Tam

      Burden, Richard

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Burgon, Colin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Burnham, Andy

      David, Wayne

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      1018

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Doran, Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Edwards, Huw

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Efford, Clive

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Etherington, Bill

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lammy, David

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Flint, Caroline

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Follett, Barbara

      Lepper, David

      Foster, rh Derek

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Foulkes, rh George

      Linton, Martin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Love, Andrew

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCabe, Stephen

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCafferty, Chris

      Goggins, Paul

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McDonnell, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacDougall, John

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McFall, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hanson, David

      McIsaac, Shona

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McKechin, Ann

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      MacShane, Denis

      McWalter, Tony

      Healey, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heppell, John

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Heyes, David

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Miliband, David

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Miller, Andrew

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mole, Chris

      Moran, Margaret

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncasier N)

      Morgan, Julie

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mountford, Kali

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mudie, George

      Hutton, rh John

      Mullin, Chris

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jamieson, David

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      1019

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Soley, Clive

      O'Hara, Edward

      Squire, Rachel

      Olner, Bill

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Organ, Diana

      Stevenson, George

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Owen, Albert

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Perham, Linda

      Stinchcornbe, Paul

      Picking, Anne

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Pickthall, Colin

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Stringer, Graham

      Plaskitt, James

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pound, Stephen

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Tipping, Paddy

      Purchase, Ken

      Trickett, Jon

      Purnell, James

      Truswell, Paul

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

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

      Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

      Tynan, Bill(Hamilton)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Rooney, Terry

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Watts, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Salter, Martin

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wills, Michael

      Sawford, Phil

      Wilson Brian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Woodward, Shaun

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mr. Phil Woolas and

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Gillian Merron

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Brady, Graham

      Allan, Richard

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Amess, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Breed, Colin

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Bacon, Richard

      Burnett, John

      Baker, Norman

      Burns, Simon

      Barker, Gregory

      Burnside, David

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Burstow, Paul

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Cameron, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Bercow, John

      Cash, William

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Boswell, Tim

      Chidgey, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Chope, Christopher

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Clappison, James

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      1020

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Collins, Tim

      Leigh, Edward

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Curry, rh David

      Lidington, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Loughton, Tim

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Maclean, rh David

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Doughty, Sue

      Malins, Humfrey

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Maples, John

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Evans, Nigel

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Maude, rh Francis

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Flight, Howard

      Flook, Adrian

      Moore, Michael

      Forth, rh Eric

      Moss, Malcolm

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Norman, Archie

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Garnier, Edward

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gidley, Sandra

      Page, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Paice, James

      Goodman, Paul

      Paterson, Owen

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Pickles, Eric

      Grayling, Chris

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Greenway, John

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Randall, John

      Gummer, rh John

      Redwood, rh John

      Hague, rh William

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Hammond, Philip

      Rendel, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Robathan, Andrew

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

      Harvey, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Heald, Oliver

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heath, David

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Ruffley, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hermon, Lady

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Selous, Andrew

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Howard, rh Michael

      Simmonds, Mark

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

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

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spring, Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Steen, Anthony

      Streeter, Gary

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Swayne, Desmond

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Syms, Robert

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lamb, Norman

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      1021

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wilkinson, John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Willetts, David

      Thurso, John

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Willis, Phil

      Trimble, rh David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Viggers, Peter

      Young, rh Sir George

      Waterson, Nigel

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Watkinson, Angela

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whittingdale, John

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Wiggin, Bill

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 18.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Jacqui Smith.]
      The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 203.

      Division No. 125]

      [5:26 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ainger, Nick

      Chidgey, David

      Allen, Graham

      Clapham, Michael

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clelland, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Baird, Vera

      Coaker, Vernon

      Banks, Tony

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Cohen, Harry

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Coleman, Iain

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cooper, Yvette

      Benn, Hilary

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bennett, Andrew

      Corston, Jean

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cousins, Jim

      Berry, Roger

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Best, Harold

      Crausby, David

      Betts, Clive

      Cruddas, Jon

      Blackman, Liz

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cummings, John

      Blunkett, rh David

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Borrow, David

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brennan, Kevin

      David, Wayne

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bryant, Chris

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burden, Richard

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burgon, Colin

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Burnham, Andy

      Dismore, Andrew

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Cairns, David

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Doughty, Sue

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Casale, Roger

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Caton, Martin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      1022

      Edwards, Huw

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Etherington, Bill

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Flint, Caroline

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lammy, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Foster, rh Derek

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lepper, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foulkes, rh George

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Linton, Martin

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Love, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Goggins, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McDonnell, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      MacDougall, John

      Hanson, David

      McFall, John

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McKechin, Ann

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Healey, John

      MacShane, Denis

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Heppell, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heyes, David

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Mole, Chris

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Moran, Margaret

      Morgan, Julie

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mudie, George

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hutton, rh John

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Olner, Bill

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Owen, Albert

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Perham, Linda

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Picking, Anne

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      1023

      Pollard, Kerry

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Pound, Stephen

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Stinchcornbe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Stringer, Graham

      Purchase, Ken

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Purnell, James

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

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

      Tipping, Paddy

      Trickett, Jon

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Salter, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Watts, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      White, Brian

      Sawford, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Shaw Jonathan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sheridan Jim

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Wills, Michael

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wilson, Brian

      Singh, Marsha

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wood Mike (Batley)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Soley, Clive

      Wyatt, Derek

      Squire, Rachel

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Phil Woolas and

      Stevenson, George

      Gillian Merron

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Burnett, John

      Allan, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Arness, David

      Burnside, David

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Burstow, Paul

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cameron, David

      Bacon, Richard

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Baker, Norman

      Cash, William

      Barker, Gregory

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Chope, Christopher

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Clappison, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Bercow, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Collins, Tim

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Boswell, Tim

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Curry, rh David

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Brady, Graham

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Brazier, Julian

      Breed, Colin

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      1024

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Maples, John

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Evans, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maude, rh Francis

      Fallon, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Flight, Howard

      Flook, Adrian

      Moore, Michael

      Forth, rh Eric

      Moss, Malcolm

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Norman, Archie

      Francois, Mark

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Garnier, Edward

      Öpik, Lembit

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gidley, Sandra

      Page, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Paice, James

      Goodman, Paul

      Paterson, Owen

      Grayling, Chris

      Pickles, Eric

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Greenway, John

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Gummer, rh John

      Randall, John

      Hague, rh William

      Redwood, rh John

      Hammond, Philip

      Rendel, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Robathan, Andrew

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Harvey, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Heald, Oliver

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heath, David

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Ruffley, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hermon, Lady

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Selous, Andrew

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Howard, rh Michael

      Simmonds, Mark

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

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

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Keetch, Paul

      Spring, Richard

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Steen, Anthony

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Streeter, Gary

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Stunell, Andrew

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Swayne, Desmond

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Syms, Robert

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lamb, Norman

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Thurso, John

      Lidington, David

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Trimble, rh David

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Loughton, Tim

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Viggers, Peter

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maclean, rh David

      Watkinson, Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Whittingdale, John

      1025

      Wiggin, Bill

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Wilkinson, John

      Willetts, David

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilshire, David

      Mr. Alan Reid and

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Richard Younger-Ross

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 23.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Jacqui Smith.]
      The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 206.

      Division No. 126]

      [5:38 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Ainger, Nick

      Coaker, Vernon

      Allen, Graham

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Coleman, Iain

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bailey, Adrian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Baird, Vera

      Corston, Jean

      Banks, Tony

      Cousins, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Crausby, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cruddas, Jon

      Benn, Hilary

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cummings, John

      Berry, Roger

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Best, Harold

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Betts, Clive

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Blackman, Liz

      Dalyell, Tam

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blunkett, rh David

      David, Wayne

      Borrow, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bryant, Chris

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Burgon, Colin

      Doran, Frank

      Burnham, Andy

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Cairns, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Efford, Clive

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Casale, Roger

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Caton, Martin

      Etherington, Bill

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Clapham, Michael

      Flint, Caroline

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Follett, Barbara

      Foster, rh Derek

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Clelland, David

      Foulkes, rh George

      1026

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Linton, Martin

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Love, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Godsiff, Roger

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Goggins, Paul

      McCabe, Stephen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McDonnell, John

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      MacDougall, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McFall, John

      Hanson, David

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McIsaac, Shona

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McKechin, Ann

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      MacShane, Denis

      Healey, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heppell, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Heyes, David

      Mann John (Bassetlaw)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Marsha-Andrews, Robert

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Miliband, David

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Mole, Chris

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Moran, Margaret

      Morgan, Julie

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mudie, George

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hutton, rh John

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Olner,Bil1

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Owen, Albert

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Perham, Linda

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Picking, Anne

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Kidney, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pollard, Kerry

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Pound, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lammy, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Purnell, James

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lepper, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

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

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      1027

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Rooney, Terry

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Salter, Martin

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sawford, Phil

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Singh, Marsha

      Watts, David

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      White, Brian

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Winnick, David

      Soley, Clive

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Spellar, rh John

      Squire, Rachel

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Woodward, Shaun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stevenson, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Mr. Phil Woolas and

      Stringer, Graham

      Gillian Merron

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cameron, David

      Allan, Richard

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Chidgey, David

      Bacon, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Baker, Norman

      Clappison, James

      Barker, Gregory

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Collins, Tim

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Bercow, John

      Curry, rh David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Boswell, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW surrey)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Brady, Graham

      Dodds, Nigel

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Brazier, Julian

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Breed, Colin

      Doughty, Sue

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Burnett, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Burns, Simon

      Fabricant, Michael

      Burnside, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Burstow, Paul

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      1028

      Flight, Howard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Flook, Adrian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Moore, Michael

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Norman, Archie

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Garnier, Edward

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Page, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Paice, James

      Grayling, Chris

      Paterson, Owen

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Pickles, Eric

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Greenway, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Gummer, rh John

      Pugh, Dr. Jonn

      Hague, rh William

      Randall, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Redwood, rh John

      Hancock, Mike

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Rendel, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Harvey Nick

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Heald, Oliver

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Heath, David

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hendry, Charles

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hermon Lady

      Ruffley, David

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Howard, rh Michael

      Selous, Andrew

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Simmonds Mark

      Hunter, Andrew

      Smith sir Robert (w Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Soames, Nicholas

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Keetch, Paul

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Steen Anthony

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Streeter, Gary

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Stunell, Andrew

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Syms, Robert

      Lamb, Norman

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Lidington, David

      Thurso, John

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Trimble, rh David

      Loughton, Tim

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Maclean, rh David

      Waterson, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Watkinson, Angela

      Malins, Humfrey

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Maples, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Wilkinson, John

      Mates, Michael

      Willetts, David

      Maude, rh Francis

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Willis, Phil

      1029

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Young, rh Sir George

      Mr. Mark Hoban

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 17, 19, 40, 42, and 44 to 46 agreed to.

    Clause 3

      DUTIES ARISING WHERE A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 2 IS GIVEN
      Lords amendment: No. 24.
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 25 and Government motion to disagree thereto.
      Jacqui Smith: The amendments would impose a permanent statutory duty on inspection bodies to monitor the impact of the Bill on patients and carers, and a permanent statutory duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament. The implication seems to be that health and social care professionals will irresponsibly discharge patients with inappropriate care packages, but we do not believe that this will be the case. Of course, they will also duplicate safeguards and inspection mechanisms already in place, and will jeopardise the independence of those that are planned.
      NHS and local authorities should, of course, already monitor the quality and effectiveness of their discharge arrangements, which are subject to the normal performance management, performance assessment and monitoring and inspection arrangements. Current inspection bodies already monitor the quality of discharge arrangements and the effect on patients and carers as part of their normal inspection and monitoring activities. For example, the social services inspectorate monitors the quality of services to older people. 'This will include the achievement of national priorities and targets—including the proportion of those helped to live at home, compared with residential care—as well as local improvement plans. As part of that, it will of course look at the quality of community support following discharge from hospital. It will also question the balance between investment in services and the amount spent on reimbursement charges.
      In a similar way, when the Commission for Health Improvement reviews clinical governance arrangements within a hospital, it covers planning of patients' entire hospital stay and their discharge. That is an important part of its review methodology. Of course, where a combination of performance indicators and inspection points to particular problems in a given area, the inspection bodies and, ultimately, the Secretary of State have an escalating power to intervene, and to ensure that action is taken to improve outcomes and performance.
      As hon. Members know, we have introduced legislation to establish two new health and social care inspectorates: the Commission for Health Care Audit
      1030
      and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. We have already stressed that those bodies will strengthen the accountability of those responsible for the commissioning and delivery of health and social services, and an important part of this role will be for both inspectorates to report annually to Parliament on the provision of NHS and social care. However, we have also stressed their independence from the Department, so although they will agree priorities with the Department, it would not be appropriate for detailed instructions such as those proposed in the amendments to pass from the Secretary of State to the inspectorate concerning the details and the frequency with which they need to inspect particular elements of older people's services.
      We do not believe, therefore, that it is necessary or appropriate to impose that permanent and specific statutory duty on the inspection bodies to monitor the effects of this Bill, or to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to report every year to Parliament specifically on the Bill's effect.
      Mr. Burns: I should say at the outset that I am very disappointed with the Minister's assessment of, and views on, two very valuable and important amendments for the raising and maintaining of standards. This Government have rightly—I am not criticising them—always maintained that patients, the NHS itself and the professionals who work in it should attain the highest possible standards, and that the quality of care should be of the highest level. I can assure the Minister that I do not disagree with her one iota on that important issue. As constituency MPs, we owe that to those of our constituents who may use the national health service, and to the NHS itself because of the professionals who work within it. What surprises me is that the Minister, by rejecting the amendments, does not seem to share our enthusiasm for ensuring the highest quality and standards in all areas of the NHS.
      For example, Lords amendment No. 24, notwithstanding he Minister's comments, seems eminently reasonable. It asks that
      "The Secretary of State shall specify to the bodies charged with inspection of health and social services that they should monitor, at regular intervals, the impact of this Act on patients and their carers."
      On the face of it, that seems to be a welcome added benefit to health and social care. So that the Minister fully appreciates the intention behind the specification that the Secretary of State would be expected to make, I confirm that the bodies that would be charged with the responsibility would be the Audit Commission, CHI—and its successor, if and when other legislation is introduced—and the social services inspectorate.
      The Government have been in power for six years now, during which time they have taken a perverse pleasure in examining every nook and cranny of our national life. They have not been averse to increasing bureaucracy, but when the other place makes an eminently sensible suggestion to ensure that standards are maintained, they—somewhat churlishly on this occasion—reject it, Under the Bill, the patient should be the most important: part of the equation of the provision of health care, but the pressures that will be placed on social services by the fines system will mean that the

      1031
      patient will be the piggy in the middle, caught between the NHS and local authority social services departments.
      Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is making an effective case and demolishing the Minister's arguments. Is not the Minister wrong when she says that the amendments imply that some sort of wrongdoing is likely to take place? The words added by the other place refer to monitoring and to reporting back to Parliament and, in a democracy, that is eminently sensible and desirable.
      Mr. Burns: I am indebted to my right hon. Friend. Perspicacious as ever, he has anticipated a point that I was about to make. In all candour, I was surprised and shocked by that comment from the Minister, because it was unfair. Nothing in any amendment to health legislation that I have supported has ever criticised or cast doubt on the huge professionalism of the staff at all levels of the NHS. It perplexed me, listening to the Minister, and I carefully read the words again in case the other place had—uncharacteristically—slipped up. I could not see that it had, and I am sure that the Minister will wish to rectify her comments later.
      Mr. Waterson: I shall try to be charitable to the Minister and suggest that she and my hon. Friend are simply and genuinely at cross-purposes. When the Minister talks about the existing inspection and audit regime, that is fine, but we are talking about a Bill that may have all sorts of unintended consequences. If those consequences are undesirable—because, in the real world, it is just possible that the Minister could be wrong about the Bill—the sooner that we identify by specific audit any national trend that suggests that, the better for all of us.
      Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend has made an important point, and he is right. We must ensure that we get the legislation right at this stage. I must say that I took umbrage at one point in my hon. Friend's intervention when he suggested—unless I misheard him—that the Minister was at cross-purposes with me because she wanted the best in this legislation. I find that difficult to reconcile in one respect. How can the Minister want the best for the Bill when she is bringing in a rather nasty system of fines on local authorities? That does not equal wanting the very best from the Bill. The Bill will do exactly the opposite of providing the very best.
      Before those helpful interventions, I was saying that the Bill will mean that patients become caught, like piggy in the middle, between the NHS and local authorities. That will happen because the Bill will pressure authorities to discharge patients to avoid a fine. I am sure that the Minister does not want patients to suffer in any way. She is talking to her silent Whip at the moment; if she were listening to me, she would be able to hear what I want to tell her in all sincerity. However, she is clearly not listening and will therefore have to read Hansard.
      Jacqui Smith: I have heard it all before.
      Mr. Burns: The Minister says that she has heard it all before, which is odd, as I have not presented this
      1032
      amendment before. It has come from another place, where common sense has prevailed and caused the Government to suffer a defeat. The Opposition in this House are trying to save the Government from making another mistake in overturning the amendment.
      Before that rather cruel intervention—the Minister cannot have heard my speech before—I was saying that it is important that patients do not suffer. I am sure that the Minister agrees with that. However, the Bill could cause them to suffer as a result of the possible early discharge from hospital to residential care or to domiciliary care in their own homes. That discharge could happen because local authorities want to avoid fines. The result could be emergency readmissions, or an unacceptable level of readmissions to hospital, within a seven to 28-day time scale.
      In an earlier debate, I set out the rising incidence of emergency readmissions to hospital among people aged over 75. The statistics show that there is a problem, and I argued that it could be exacerbated by the Bill. Amendment No. 24 would help to minimise that potential problem.
      6 pm
      Similarly, in the rush to avoid a fine, patients could be discharged into inappropriate care, or into the least appropriate care. No one wants that to happen, but it may be an unfortunate consequence of the possibility that local authorities could be fined. Alternatively, patients could be discharged to their own homes without adequate support services from either the NHS or the local authority social services department. Carers could suffer because undue burdens are placed on them when patients are discharged—by local authorities wishing to avoid being fined—without the support of a proper and comprehensive care package.
      Amendment No. 24 would alleviate those potential problems. It would allow the situation to be monitored, as reports would be made to local authorities and the NHS. In that way, the problems that could arise would be minimised. For that reason, the Minister got it wrong when she criticised the amendment in her opening comments. She should think again.
      Amendment No. 25 is eminently sensible. It would straightforwardly require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the outcomes of patients affected by the provisions in the Bill. I should have thought that the Government would warmly welcome that. Certainly, in opposition, they were strong proponents of open government. We have heard the rhetoric—they have talked the talk, but they do not often walk the walk—that people should be empowered with information and knowledge. The amendment represents a classic example of that. It is justifiable that Parliament—which will, if the Government get their way, pass this unpleasant Bill—should be made aware of the outcome of the legislation that it passes. That is not an unreasonable requirement, and I should have thought that the Government, in the spirit of open government and empowering people with information, would be prepared to accept it.
      There may be an overriding reason why the Government do not want the Secretary of State to be required to report annually to Parliament on the outcomes of patients affected by the legislation.

      1033
      Perhaps, in their heart of hearts, they accept the arguments that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I, as well as the Liberal Democrats, have been making for many months—that the Bill is counterproductive and highly damaging, that it will destroy partnership working between the health service and local authorities, and that it will have an adverse impact on patients because it will increase pressures on the early discharge of patients, especially elderly patients over the age of 75. As is shown by the statistics that the Government have produced in recent months, those pressures have led to a rising level of emergency readmissions. In fact, it is probably the case that the Government do not oppose the principle of amendment No. 25, but fear its consequences, in that it would annually reveal to Parliament the failings of the legislation. Moreover, it would show how right the Opposition have been to oppose the Bill root and branch and how misguided Ministers and their followers on the Back Benches have been to press ahead with it in defiance of all the evidence that it is not a good piece of legislation.
      Mr. Greg Knight: is not there another argument that the Minister might find more attractive—that is, that if the legislation works well, members of the Government would have an annual opportunity to come to this House to say so?
      Mr. Burns: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He knows as well as I do that some members of the Government are not as keen on coming to this place as others. In some cases, the amendment could represent an opportunity to ensure that they are here, and it could become an annual visit, so it has that extra potential benefit.
      I hope that the Minister will, in the spirit of maintaining the highest possible standards and of open government, be minded to think again. I am not confident about that, but perhaps I can encourage her by saying that I will ask at the appropriate moment to divide the House on amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
      Mr. Burstow: I support the amendments because it is appropriate to ask the various inspection agencies covering health and social care now and in future to monitor the implementation of the legislation, and, not least, because the Minister has been unable to answer several questions in the course of the debate, and by monitoring the situation closely we might begin to get some of those answers. Earlier, I referred to the National Audit Office report—and specifically to the accuracy of data that were being supplied on the numbers of people who are suffering delays in their discharge. I was a little disappointed that the Minister was unable to cast any light on Government actions in response to the NAO's findings and was unable to say whether the Government accepted the NAO's conclusion that there were difficulties that would impact on the Government's ability to implement the system of fines that the Bill would introduce. More than four out of every 10 NHS bodies that are responsible for submitting data on the numbers of people who are experiencing delays appear not to be following the Government's definitions. That is a problem.
      1034
      However, it is not only what the NAO is saying that causes concern. Not surprisingly, local authorities, in partnership with their local NHS, are trying to test how the system would work. A colleague of mine from a metropolitan authority in the midlands told me:
      "There is also a problem over definitions (there almost always has been but local work had, we thought, given … agreed definitions). A recent batch of 9 discharges from a local hospital went through a trial run to see what the results of the delayed discharge scheme would be, and the social services department thought they had agreement that only one of the discharges would count"
      for the purposes of the fine system. However, when the department went back to the NHS trust, the trust declared that nine would be counted as delayed under the legislation. That was clearly a trial exercise to see what would happen, but it bears on the issue of clarity of definition. That clarity is still not in the Bill. The NAO has raised concerns about that.
      Another issue that I hope will be contained in an annual report to Parliament, and that certainly ought to be subject to monitoring by the Commission for Health Improvement and the Commission for Social Care Inspection, is the interface between health and housing and social care. From 1 April, the supporting people programme will be rolled out across the country. Large amounts of money will be reorganised and distributed by local authorities to pay for supporting people in their own homes and in settings such as sheltered accommodation. However, I was surprised to learn recently that guidance on how the supporting people programme fits with the single assessment process—guidance that one would have thought should have been provided by now to local authorities—has not even begun to be written. The group that will do that work has not even been called together. It would therefore seem appropriate to have in the Bill a measure to enable agencies such as the Commission for Social Care Inspection to consider how the intersection between the single assessment process and the supporting people programme works.
      One cause of dispute in the Chamber and in Committee, relating to whether this Bill can be implemented effectively, can be examined. It is the shortage of specialist staff. The NAO report found that two groups in particular—social workers and therapists—are in short supply. It was not only social services departments that foresaw a problem; it was the overwhelming view of primary care trusts that such shortages would continue to hamper dealing with issues of delayed discharge.
      I have one final question for the Minister, and I feel that this amendment could allow this issue to be monitored. It concerns the dividing line between what is NHS-funded continuing long-term care and what are NHS part-funded registered nursing care contributions—also called free nursing care. I have raised a concern with the Minister and others on a number of occasions. The criteria for the highest band of registered nurse contributions are setting a threshold that requires a higher and more complex level of need than the eligibility criteria for fully funded NHS continuing care. It would be useful for that to be looked at.

      1035
      The nursing care practice guide and workbook states:
      "People with high needs for registered nursing care will have complex needs that require frequent medical, technical and/or therapeutic intervention. They will need frequent intervention and re-assessment by a registered nurse throughout a 24 hour period and their physical/mental health state will be unpredictable."
      That is the definition used to enable a nurse to determine whether someone is in the top band and will receive a contribution of £110 towards their nursing care in a nursing home.
      6.15 pm
      The case studies in the workbook are examples that help nurses to apply the guidance meaningfully. However, it is interesting to compare them with the health ombudsman's report, which deals with real cases. The workbook stated that a woman who had suffered a cerebrovascular accident—CVA—would be placed in the highest band of nursing because she had suffered
      "loss of speech and was unable to swallow; partial paralysis and poor balance and co—ordination, doubly incontinent, pressure sore and tearful and distressed. She requires peg feeding and enemas to maintain bowel function, the use of a hoist to ensure safe transfer, and monitoring of the pressure sore, teaching to improve sitting balance, review of need for anti-depressant therapy and work to maintain social interaction."
      The amendment should include provision for the inspectorate to examine such cases because the health service ombudsman found that peg feeding was a criterion for continuing NHS care in one authority but not in another. In one case, the ombudsman's report helpfully listed Mrs. N's needs. They were
      "a hoist to help with transfers, a … catheter in place to deal with her incontinence of urine and assistance with her bowel function every three to four days; changing position to maintain skin viability, help with washing and oral care, and peg feeding. She did not appear to be depressed but smiled in response to other people."
      Those cases are similar, yet in one, used as an example, the person was entitled only to a contribution of £110 towards their nursing while in the other—a real case cited in the health service ombudsman's report—the person was entitled to have all their care met and paid for by the national health service. The Department's case study guidance is issued to nurses whose job is to make those systems work and it ought to lead to the conclusion that people are entitled to continuing NHS care funding.
      Will the Minister comment on that? More important, I hope that we do not have to rely only on the health service ombudsman to resolve, on a case-by-case basis, the problem of the dividing line between free continuing NHS care and nursing contributions. The Government should take the opportunity provided by the health service ombudsman's report to clarify the situation so that we stop the injustice that is undoubtedly being done to thousands of people who are being denied their rights.
      Mr. Waterson: I am extremely puzzled by the attitude of the Minister and the Government to these perfectly sensible and appropriate amendments. Lords amendment No. 24 would specify bodies that will monitor the impact of the measure at regular intervals and Lords amendment No. 25 provides for an annual
      1036
      report to Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) pointed out, such a report might give the Government the chance to trumpet the success of the legislation. I seem to recall that the Government used to issue an annual report to trumpet their achievements, but that practice seemed to fall into disuse two or three years ago—presumably because there was not much to trumpet.
      I urge the Minister to think again about the amendment. I appreciate why she might be feeling defensive about the measure; as we have already established, the Bill does not have a friend in the world. Even some of the Government's Back Benchers, including the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, are not willing to support it. It has caused a storm of protest throughout the country, expressed through the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services and so on.
      The Minister seems to think that the amendment will wreak a huge sea change in the position. Indeed, her thesis, which seems to go further away from reality, is that the mere threat of the Bill has enormously improved the bed-blocking position and that it will make a vast difference and improve the lives of many hundreds of thousands of patients throughout the country. She may be right. If she is, fine, but I do not think that she is. Equally, the Opposition and various bodies may well be right, and the law of unintended consequences will kick in and set at odds with one another some of the agencies that, certainly in my constituency, are now working in much closer partnership than they ever did before.
      I pay tribute to East Sussex county council for its work in the past year or two, since it has been run by the Conservatives, who have got to grips with the issue and worked closely with the health organisations. Although there are occasional blips, the result is a steady decline in the number of beds blocked or delayed discharges.
      I concede that the truth may turn out to be somewhere between those two views. However, on any assessment, this is a brand new regime with some pretty draconian powers, and it could all go horribly wrong or, at the very least, not produce the results that the Minister wants, so I fail to understand why she does not think that monitoring its progress is a good idea. There may be some scope for discussing whether that duty should arise only in the initial stages of its implementation. I can understand the Minister's argument that that should not happen every year, for ever, if the legislation has settled down or, even more likely, the problem has gone away of its own accord.
      In the debate in the other place, Baroness Noakes said that, under the current arrangements, the bodies involved would be the Audit Commission, the Commission for Health Improvement and the social services inspectorate, and she put it extremely well. Of course we have heard that, yet again, some of those bodies are in a state of flux, and we will end up with something called the Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection. Whatever label is attached to those bodies, if legitimate concerns are felt not just by the official Opposition or the Liberal Democrats, but by lots of people at the coalface throughout the country who deal with such problems daily, it is surely important that we should get an idea early on whether the

      1037
      provisions are having the effect that the Minister thinks that they should. Surely, she, more than anyone else, would wish to know whether that was the case.
      If I may give the Minister a bit of friendly advice, I do not think that she should associate herself too closely with the Bill or she may turn into another Minister who never was, like Lord Hunt who used to deal with such matters in the other place.
      The Bill's effects will need careful examination in the real world. We have heard about some of the problems. Baroness Noakes referred to some of them in the other place, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has dealt with the problem of readmission, so I need not do so. It is possible that people will be discharged home without adequate support services, and there is a whole series of possible knock-on effects, simply because of this ill-thought-out, hurried Bill.
      It is worth quoting what the Right Rev. Bishop of Hereford said in the other place. He referred to what he called
      "the widespread feeling that patients are treated … as commodities."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 February 2003; Vol. 644, c. 975.]
      Other hon. Members and I have expressed that view in earlier debates on the Bill. That is the nub of the problem. The Opposition and many other people are worried that patients and their needs are not central to the Bill and that they will be pushed aside in the interests of what I have already called this bizarre game of pass the parcel. Let us stop using the words "fines" and "incentives". I shall say that the Bill has financial repercussions—that may make the Minister happy—if people are holding the parcel when the music stops.
      There will be some serious, hard cases in the real world, affecting our constituents, as well as those of the Minister and other hon. Members, so why on earth does not the Minister want to reassure people? Of course she takes the view that the rest of the world is out of step and that she is the only one in step, but if she is so utterly convinced of her rectitude, why not put it to the test? As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire has already said, if there is good news to tell, let her blazon it in the House with an annual report and let it be reported on and authenticated by those audit bodies.
      I could not agree more with the comment that Baroness Noakes made in last month's debate:
      "the Bill … tends to marginalise the individuals who are at the heart of the processes."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 February 2003; Vol. 644, c. 1029.]
      That has been and will continue to be our fear about the Bill. We are happy and willing to be proved wrong. Surely, the way to ensure that that happens is to use one or more of the sort of bodies that are so beloved of the Government to audit progress, see whether the legislation is working and report annually to Parliament. I cannot see the Minister's problem, as by accepting the amendments—if she will only leave them alone, they are already part of the Bill—she can at a stroke prove us all wrong and prove that hers is the lonely voice that has been right all along.
      1038
      I hope that the House will support the Lords in their amendments and maintain them in the Bill.
      Mr. Greg Knight: We have just heard three very powerful speeches explaining why the Minister is wrong on the issue with which the amendments deal but not one voice raised in support from the Labour Benches.
      The Minister's opening remarks sounded rather half-hearted and certainly showed a paucity of reason. We are disappointed by her attitude to the amendments because we had a debate yesterday in which the Opposition were prepared to take a non-partisan approach on a very important issue and say that, where we thought that the Government and the Prime Minister in particular were right, they had our support. All that we are asking her to do is listen to our arguments and reflect on what she will say in advising the House about how to treat the proposed additions to the Bill. What are we seeking to do? We are seeking to say that proposals that are moderate, modest and reasonable should remain in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 24 states:
      "The Secretary of State shall specify to the bodies charged with inspection of health and social services that they should monitor".
      The word "monitor" was put into the Bill by the other place, and it does not carry with it any of the implications to which the Minister referred in relation to a presumption of wrongdoing. The monitoring process would occur "at regular intervals". If the Minister were willing to reflect on the matter again, I would be happy to accept that regular intervals do not need to involve continual monitoring, but could entail annual monitoring or even a biannual process. Surely, however, it is right to see that best practice is being followed and that it is consistent throughout the United Kingdom.
      I cannot understand why the Minister is not willing to accept Lords amendment No. 25. As you will be well aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it used to be said in the days of the previous Conservative Government that there was terrible pressure on parliamentary time and that it was not possible always to accommodate debates on every single issue that hon. Members felt was important. However, there has been a change in our procedures since that time—the addition of Westminster Hall. Although the former Leader of the House, who has just resigned his position, and his predecessor both gave an undertaking to the official Opposition that Westminster Hall would not be used for introducing legislation, there is consensus in all parts of the House that it could and should be used for debates on annual reports such as the one in question. In the light of the fact that we now have that other Chamber a stone's throw away from this place, I am at a loss to understand why the Minister will not accept the amendment.
      Mr. Burns: My right hon. Friend touches on an extremely important point. He is as aware as I am that Westminster Hall is already used to debate Select Committee reports, so the precedent exists and the powerful suggestion that he is making would dovetail with what already happens in our proceedings.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Knight: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. An annual report does not have to be debated every year. If an annual report was good but was deemed to contain nothing exciting or worthy of criticism, then the usual channels could produce a system in which a debate did not have to occur every year. Clearly, cost is not an issue because the Minister did not mention it. I was apprehensive that she might argue that she did not want the amendments because of the cost to the Exchequer, but that does not seem to be a problem. I hope that she will think again. I say to her: be bold, be reckless and, in the light of the powerful arguments adduced in the debate, allow the amendments to stand.
      Jacqui Smith: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate.
      Hon. Members suggested that a monitoring and reporting system is not in place to ensure that the good outcomes produced by the Bill will be clearly monitored. However, I outlined a variety of ways—I do not intend to repeat them—in which that will be ensured. I think that the amendments are otiose and that it can be argued that they will have a detrimental effect on the inspection bodies that will be established.
      Having feigned indignation when I suggested that the amendments were proposed on the assumption that the health and social care services might not operate in the best interests of patients, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) then gave a string of ways in which the system might indeed not operate in the best interests of patients. I reassure him that monitoring is in place to ensure that that does not happen. The NHS and social care performance indicators, introduced by the Government to ensure greater accountability of the performance of the NHS and social care services, already include delayed discharges, emergency readmissions and home care to help people live at home. We are also introducing indicators on the speed of service provision. Those will show when substantial problems arise.
      Hon. Members also asked about debating annual reports that are made to Parliament. Under the previous system—with the exception of the Commission for Health Improvement, largely inherited from the Conservative Government—annual reports were published, but not to Parliament. Under the new system, the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection will make annual reports to Parliament. We amply cover the concerns of hon. Members that both the successes and the challenges are reported to Parliament on an annual basis.
      When we debate the legislation to establish the new inspection bodies, I shall be interested to hear whether Opposition Members raise concerns about the need to ensure that they are able to make an independent determination of quality in the health service and social care service. That would be different from the approach
      1040
      taken by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, who believes that we should instruct the bodies in the minutiae of their considerations.
      Mr. Burns: I did not say that.
      Jacqui Smith: That is the implication of the Lords amendment. The other place claims to believe in the independence of the inspection bodies, but that claim lies rather uncomfortably with the proposals in the amendment.
      I want to spend some time responding to the points raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) about, among other things, his specialist subject of continuing care. On the points made by the National Audit Office about the definition of good practice, one of the important features of the Bill is that it will put in place a clear process and decision points for determining a delayed discharge and, therefore, the point at which reimbursement should kick in. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about his colleagues on the metropolitan authority in the west midlands, but perhaps that authority would welcome a visit from the Department's implementation team to ensure that some of the concerns can be ironed out before the Bill comes into force.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the broader definition of delayed discharge. Sir Nigel Crisp, the chief executive of the NHS, has written to those trusts that told the National Audit Office that they were not using the definition. All of them have confirmed that they are now using the correct definition.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about continuing care and its relationship with free nursing care. When nurses undertake a determination of NHS-funded nursing care, we have made it clear that all nurses should consider eligibility under continuing NHS health care criteria as the first step in assessing people's needs for care in a care home providing nursing. Furthermore, in the guidance on NHS-funded nursing care, we have consistently maintained the distinction between NHS-funded nursing care and continuing NHS health care, making it clear that NHS-funded nursing care is part of a spectrum of care that falls short of what one would expect to see when the primary need is for health care. As I have suggested, we have made it clear that, regardless of the eventual setting in which someone is likely to be cared for, we expect the first consideration in a joint assessment of someone's need to be always the extent to which that person meets or does not meet the criteria for NHS continuing health care.
      Mr. Burstow: The Minister is making some helpful clarifications. However, will she also undertake to take away the workbook that is currently used for guiding nurses in applying the tool for assessing the entitlement to free nursing care contributions? The workbook contains a case that is exactly the same as a real case considered by the ombudsman, and that must provide incorrect information and the incorrect basis for making decisions.
      Jacqui Smith: I was just coming to that point. I have pointed out that the first task is to assess whether someone has a need for NHS continuing care and emphasised that we must consider that on a case-by-case basis. The fictitious case that the hon. Gentleman

      1041
      mentioned would be considered in the assessment of nursing care only if the continuing care criteria were not met. A consideration of that would previously have been carried out. The hon. Gentleman's points about the workbook are not justified.
      We are considering inspection and monitoring, and the hon. Gentleman asked whether we could consider the monitoring of the continuing care criteria. Although not solely in response to his concerns, we have asked CHI to consider local policies and criteria as part of a review of the older people's national service framework.
      In conclusion, I believe I have provided the reassurance that right hon. and hon. Members wanted. The amendments are unnecessary and challenge the current arrangements and the independence of the inspectorates that we want to develop. For that reason, I hope the House will disagree with the Lords.
      Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 198.

      Division No. 127]

      [6:40 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ainger, Nick

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, rh Donald (swansea E)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clelland, David

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cohen, Harry

      Bailey, Adrian

      Coleman, Iain

      Baird, Vera

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Banks, Tony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barnes, Harry

      Corston, Jean

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cousins, Jim

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Benn, Hilary

      Crausby, David

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cruddas, Jon

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Berry, Roger

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Betts, Clive

      Cummings, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dalyell, Tam

      Borrow, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bryant, Chris

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Burden, Richard

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Burgon, Colin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Burnham, Andy

      Doran, Frank

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Cairns, David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Edwards, Huw

      Casale, Roger

      Efford, Clive

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Chaytor, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Clapham, Michael

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      1042

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Linton, Martin

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Flint, Caroline

      Love, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Follett, Barbara

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      McCabe, Stephen

      McCafferty, Chris

      Foulkes, rh George

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gardiner, Barry

      MacDonald, Calum

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      MacDougall, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      McFall, John

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gilroy, Linda

      McIsaac, Shona

      Godsiff, Roger

      McKechin, Ann

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWalter Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hain, rh Peter

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mann John (Bassetlaw)

      Hanson, David

      Marris Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Marshall Jim (Leicester S)

      Healey, John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Merron, Gillian

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Heyes, David

      Miliband, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Mole, Chris

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morgan, Julie

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mudie George

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Illsley, Eric

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jackson, Glenda (Hempstead & Highgate)

      Norris Dan (Wansdyke)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jamieson, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jenkins, Brian

      Olner, Bill

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Owen, Albert

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Perham, Linda

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Picking, Anne

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kidney, David

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Plaskitt, James

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pollard, Kerry

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Pound, Stephen

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lammy, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Purchase, Ken

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Purnell, James

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lepper, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

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

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      1043

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rooney, Terry

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Salter, Martin

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sawford, Phil

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Singh, Marsha

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Soley, Clive

      Wills, Michael

      Spellar, rh John

      Wilson, Brian

      Squire, Rachel

      Winnick, David

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wood Mike (Batley)

      Stevenson, George

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Woolas Phil

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Stringer, Graham

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Mr. Fiaser Kemp

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cameron, David

      Allan, Richard

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Chidgey, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Chope, Christopher

      Bacon, Richard

      Clappison, James

      Baker, Norman

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Barker, Gregory

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Collins, Tim

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Curry, rh David

      Bercow, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Boswell, Tim

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Brady, Graham

      Doughty, Sue

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Brazier, Julian

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Breed, Colin

      Evans, Nigel

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Fallon, Michael

      Burnett, John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Burns, Simon

      Burnside, David

      Flight, Howard

      Burstow, Paul

      Flook, Adrian

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Forth, rh Eric

      1044

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Page, Richard

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Paice, James

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Paterson, Owen

      Gidley, Sandra

      Pickles, Eric

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Goodman, Paul

      Grayling, Chris

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Randall, John

      Greenway, John

      Redwood, rh John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Gummer, rh John

      Rendel, David

      Hague, rh William

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hancock, Mike

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Harvey, Nick

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Ruffley, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Heath, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hermon, Lady

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Selous, Andrew

      Holmes, Paul

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Howard, rh Michael

      Smith sir Robert (W Ab'ns & Kincardine)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spicer Sir Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spink Bob (Castle Point)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Spring Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Steen Anthony

      Streeter Gary

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      stunell, Andrew

      Kirkbride Miss Julie

      Swayne Desmond

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Syms, Robert

      Laing Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lamb, Norman

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Leigh, Edward

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Thurso, John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Lidington, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Lilley rh Peter

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Llwyd Elfyn

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Loughton, Tim

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Viggers, Peter

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Watkinson, Angela

      Maclean, rh David

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wiggin, Bill

      Maples, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Willetts, David

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Mates, Michael

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Maude, rh Francis

      Willis, Phil

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Moore, Michael

      Young, rh Sir George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Norman, Archie

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 25
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Jacqui Smith.]
      The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 198.

      Division No. 128]

      [6:53 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Corston, Jean

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Ainger, Nick

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Crausby, David

      Allen, Graham

      Cruddas, Jon

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Cummings, John

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bailey, Adrian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Baird, Vera

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Banks, Tony

      Davidson, Ian

      Barnes, Harry

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Benn, Hilary

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Berry, Roger

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Best, Harold

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Betts, Clive

      Doran, Frank

      Blackman, Liz

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Borrow, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Efford, Clive

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bryant, Chris

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Burgon, Colin

      Flint, Caroline

      Burnham, Andy

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Follett, Barbara

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Foster, rh Derek

      Cairns, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Casale, Roger

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      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, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Goggins, Paul

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clelland, David

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hanson, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      1046

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mallaber, Judy

      Healey, John

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heyes, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Miliband, David

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Mole, Chris

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Moran, Margaret

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Julie

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hutton, rh John

      Mudie, George

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Mullin, Chris

      Illsley, Eric

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Jamieson, David

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jenkins, Brian

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Olner, Bill

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      O'Neill, Martin

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Organ, Diana

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Owen, Albert

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kidney, David

      Perham, Linda

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Picking, Anne

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pickthall, Colin

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Plaskitt, James

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Pound, Stephen

      Lammy, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lepper, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Purnell, James

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Linton, Martin

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

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

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooney, Terry

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ruddock, Joan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      MacDonald, Calum

      McDonnell, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      MacDougall, John

      Salter, Martin

      McFall, John

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sawford, Phil

      McKechin, Ann

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacShane, Denis

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWalter, Tony

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      1047

      Singh, Marsha

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Soley, Clive

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Spellar, rh John

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Squire, Rachel

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Watts, David

      Stevenson, George

      White, Brian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Wills, Michael

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Winnick, David

      Stringer, Graham

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Woolas, Phil

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trickett, Jon

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Truswell, Paul

      Mr. John Heppell

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Allan, Richard

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Amess, David

      Curry, rh David

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Bacon, Richard

      Baker, Norman

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Barker, Gregory

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Doughty, Sue

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, Nigel

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fabricant Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fallon, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Flight, Howard

      Flook, Adrian

      Brady, Graham

      Forth, rh Eric

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brazier, Julian

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Breed, Colin

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Garnier, Edward

      Bruce, Malcolm

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Burnett, John

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Burns, Simon

      Gidley, Sandra

      Burnside, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burstow, Paul

      Goodman, Paul

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Grayling, Chris

      Cameron, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Cash, William

      Greenway, John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Gummer, rh John

      Chidgey, David

      Hague, rh William

      Chope, Christopher

      Hammond, Philip

      Clappison, James

      Hancock, Mike

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Collins, Tim

      Harvey, Nick

      1048

      Hawkins, Nick

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen and Dinefwr)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Heald, Oliver

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Heath, David

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Hermon, Lady

      Randall, John

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Redwood, rh John

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Holmes, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Howard, rh Michael

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-kent)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Ruffley, David

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Keetch, Paul

      Sanders Adrian

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Selous, Andrew

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Simmonds, Mark

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

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

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lamb, Norman

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lansley, Andrew

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Spring, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Steen, Anthony

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Streeter, Gary

      Lidington, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Swayne, Desmond

      Llwyd Elfyn

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Loughton, Tim

      Syms, Robert

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Maclean, rh David

      Thurso, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tonge Dr. Jenny

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tredinnick, David

      Maples, John

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mates, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Maude, rh Francis

      Waterson, Nigel

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Watkinson, Angela

      Mercer, Patrick

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Whittingdale, John

      Wiggin, Bill

      Moore, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Willetts, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Norman Archie

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Ottaway, Richard

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Paterson, Owen

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Pickles, Eric

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      It being after Seven o' clock, Mr. Speaker then proceeded to the Questions necessary to conclude proceedings, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002.]

    After Clause 3
    Lords amendment: No. 26.
    Motion made and Question put, That Government amendment (a) to the said amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 197.

    Division No. 129]

    [7:04 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Corston, Jean

    Ainger, Nick

    Cousins, Jim

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Allen, Graham

    Crausby, David

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Cummings, John

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Baird, Vera

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Banks, Tony

    Davidson, Ian

    Barnes, Harry

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Dawson, Hilton

    Benn, Hilary

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bennett, Andrew

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Berry, Roger

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Best, Harold

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Betts, Clive

    Doran, Frank

    Blackman, Liz

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Borrow, David

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Edwards, Huw

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Efford, Clive

    Brennan, Kevin

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Etherington, Bill

    Bryant, Chris

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Burden, Richard

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Burgon, Colin

    Flint, Caroline

    Burnham, Andy

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Follett, Barbara

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Foster, rh Derek

    Cairns, David

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Foulkes, rh George

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Casale, Roger

    Gardiner, Barry

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Chaytor, David

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Clapham, Michael

    Gilroy, Linda

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Goggins, Paul

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hain, rh Peter

    Clelland, David

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hanson, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    1050

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    MacShane, Denis

    McWalter, Tony

    Healey, John

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mallaber, Judy

    Heyes, David

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Martlew, Eric

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Merron, Gillian

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Miliband, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mole, Chris

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Hutton, rh John

    Moran, Margaret

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Morgan, Julie

    Illsley, Eric

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Mountford, Kali

    Mullin, Chris

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Jamieson, David

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Olner, Bill

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    O'Neill, Martin

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Organ, Diana

    Kidney, David

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Owen, Albert

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Perham, Linda

    Picking, Anne

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Plaskitt, James

    Lammy, David

    Pollard, Kerry

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Pound, Stephen

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Lepper, David

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Purchase, Ken

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Purnell, James

    Linton, Martin

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Love, Andrew

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

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

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    McCabe, Stephen

    McCafferty, Chris

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Rooney, Terry

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    McDonnell, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    MacDougall, John

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    McFall, John

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Salter, Martin

    McKechin, Ann

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Savidge, Malcolm

    1051

    Sawford, Phil

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Trickett, Jon

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Truswell, Paul

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Singh, Marsha

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Soley, Clive

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Spellar, rh John

    Watts, David

    Squire, Rachel

    white, Brian

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Steinberg, Gerry

    wicks, Malcolm

    Stevenson, George

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Wills, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Winnick, David

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Stringer, Graham

    Woodward, Shaun

    Woolas, Phil

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wright David (Telford)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Wright Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Timms, Stephen

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mr. John Heppell

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Chidgey, David

    Allan, Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Amess, David

    Clappison, James

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Collins, Tim

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Bacon, Richard

    Curry, rh David

    Baker, Norman

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Barker, Gregory

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Bellingham, Henry

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Blunt, Crispin

    Doughty, Sue

    Boswell, Tim

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Evans, Nigel

    Fabricant, Michael

    Brady, Graham

    Fallon, Michael

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Brazier, Julian

    Breed, Colin

    Flight, Howard

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Flook, Adrian

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Forth, rh Eric

    Burnett, John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Burns, Simon

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Burnside, David

    Francois, Mark

    Burstow, Paul

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Garnier, Edward

    Cameron, David

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Cash, William

    Gidley, Sandra

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Goodman, Paul

    1052

    Grayling, Chris

    Page, Richard

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Paice, James

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Paterson, Owen

    Greenway, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Grieve, Dominic

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Gummer, rh John

    Hague, rh William

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Hammond, Philip

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Hancock, Mike

    Randall, John

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Redwood, rh John

    Rendel, David

    Harvey, Nick

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hawkins, Nick

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Heald, Oliver

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Heath, David

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Hermon, Lady

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Ruffley David

    Holmes, Paul

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Howard, rh Michael

    Sayeed Jonatnan

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Selous Andrew

    Hunter, Andrew

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Jack, rh Michael

    simmonds, Mark

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Smyth Rev Martin (Belfast s)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Keetch, Paul

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Spring, Richard

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Steen, Anthony

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Streeter, Gary

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Stunell Andrew

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Swayne, Desmond

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

    Lamb, Norman

    Syms, Robert

    Lansley, Andrew

    Taylor John (Solihull)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Leigh, Edward

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Taylor, sir Teddy

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Lidington, David

    Thurso, John

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Tredinnick, David

    Loughton, Tim

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Viggers, Peter

    Maclean, rh David

    Waterson, Nigel

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Watkinson, Angela

    Malins, Humfrey

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Maples, John

    Whittingdale, John

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Wiggin, Bill

    Wilkinson, John

    Mates, Michael

    Willetts, David

    Maude, rh Francis

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Willis, Phil

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Wilshire, David

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Moore, Michael

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Norman, Archie

    Young, rh Sir George

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Sir Robert Smith and

    Ottaway, Richard

    Mr. Alan Reid

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to.

    After Clause 4
    Lords amendment: No. 35
    Motion made, and Question put, That amendment (a) to the said amendment be made.—[Jacqui Smith.]
    The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 193.

    Division No. 130]

    [7:17 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Corston, Jean

    Ainger, Nick

    Cousins, Jim

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Allen, Graham

    Crausby, David

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cummings, John

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Baird, Vera

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Banks, Tony

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Barnes, Harry

    Davidson, Ian

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Benn, Hilary

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bennett, Andrew

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Berry, Roger

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Best, Harold

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Betts, Clive

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Blackman, Liz

    Doran, Frank

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Borrow, David

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Edwards, Huw

    Brennan, Kevin

    Efford, Clive

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Bryant, Chris

    Etherington, Bill

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Burden, Richard

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Burgon, Colin

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Burnham, Andy

    Flint, Caroline

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Follett, Barbara

    Cairns, David

    Foster, rh Derek

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Foulkes, rh George

    Casale, Roger

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Chaytor, David

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clapham, Michael

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Goggins, Paul

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clelland, David

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hain, rh Peter

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    1054

    Hanson, David

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Healey, John

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Heyes, David

    Martlew, Eric

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Merron, Gillian

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Miliband, David

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Mole, Chris

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Moran, Margaret

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Morgan, Julie

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mountford, Kali

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mudie, George

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Mullin, Chris

    Hutton, rh John

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Illsley, Eric

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Jamieson, David

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Organ, Diana

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Owen, Albert

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Perham, Linda

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Picking, Anne

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kidney, David

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Plaskitt, James

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Pollard, Kerry

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Pound, Stephen

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lammy, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Purchase, Ken

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lepper, David

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

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

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Linton, Martin

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Love, Andrew

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Rooney, Terry

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ruddock, Joan

    McCabe, Stephen

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    McCafferty, Chris

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Salter, Martin

    MacDonald, Calum

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McDonnell, John

    Savidge, Malcolm

    MacDougall, John

    Sawford, Phil

    McFall, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sheridan, Jim

    McIsaac, Shona

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    McKechin, Ann

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    MacShane, Denis

    Singh, Marsha

    McWalter, Tony

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    1055

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Soley, Clive

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Spellar, rh John

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Squire, Rachel

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Stevenson, George

    Watts, David

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    White, Brian

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Wills, Michael

    Strang, rh Dr Gavin

    Winnick David

    Stringer Graham

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Wood Mike (Batley)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Woolas, Phil

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Timms, Stephen

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Trickett, Jon

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Truswell, Paul

    Mr. John Heppell

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Allan, Richard

    Amess, David

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Doughty, Sue

    Bacon, Richard

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Baker, Norman

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Barker, Gregory

    Evans, Nigel

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Fallon, Michael

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Flight, Howard

    Flook, Adrian

    Blunt, Crispin

    Forth, rh Eric

    Boswell,Tim

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Brady, Graham

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Brazier, Julian

    Garnier, Edward

    Breed, Colin

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gibb Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Gidley Sandra

    Burnett, John

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Burns, Simon

    Goodman, Paul

    Burnside, David

    Grayling, Chris

    Burstow, Paul

    Green Darmian (Ashford)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Green Matthew (Ludlow)

    Cameron, David

    Greenway, John

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Grieve Dominic

    Cash, William

    Gummer, rh John

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Hague, rh William

    Hammond, Philip

    Chidgey, David

    Hancock, Mike

    Chope, Christopher

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Clappison, James

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Harvey, Nick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hawkins, Nick

    Collins, Tim

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Heald, Oliver

    Curry, rh David

    Heath, David

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Hermon, Lady

    1056

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Rendel, David

    Holmes, Paul

    Robathan, Andrew

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Howard, rh Michael

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Ruffley, David

    Keetch, Paul

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Selous, Andrew

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Simmonds, Mark

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

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

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Lamb, Norman

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Lansley, Andrew

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Leigh, Edward

    Spring, Richard

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Steen, Anthony

    Lidington, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Stunell, Andrew

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Swayne, Desmond

    Loughton, Tim

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Syms, Robert

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Maclean, rh David

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Malins, Humfrey

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Maples, John

    Thurso, John

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Tredinnick, David

    Mates, Michael

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Maude, rh Francis

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Mercer, Patrick

    Viggers, Peter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Watkinson, Angela

    Moore, Michael

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Whittingdale, John

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Wiggin, Bill

    Norman, Archie

    Wilkinson, John

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Willetts, David

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Willis, Phil

    Page, Richard

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Paice, James

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Paterson, Owen

    Pickles, Eric

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Young, rh Sir George

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Randall, John

    Mr. David Wilshire and

    Redwood, rh John

    Mr. Mark Francois

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 35 agreed to.
    Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill; Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Paul Burstow, Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Andrew Love and Jacqui Smith; Jacqui Smith to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

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

    INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
    That the draft African Development Fund (Ninth Replenishment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
    That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development (Fifth Replenishment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
    AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
    That the draft Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Cattle, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    That the draft Local Authorities (Charges for Specified Welfare Services) (England) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft Paternity and Adoption Leave (Adoption from Overseas) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 24th February, be approved. —[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft regulatory reform orders),

    HOUSING
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (Housing Management Agreements) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to.

Panxhi Family
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
7.32 pm
Ann McKechin: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House this evening the case of the Panxhi family and their application for asylum in this country. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the family currently reside in your constituency of Springburn; I know that you are very familiar with the circumstances of their case and have taken a close interest.
The family consist of Mrs. Valentina Panxhi and her children—Brikena, aged 12, Enea, aged 9 and Grace, who was born in 2001 when the family had arrived in Scotland. Mrs. Panxhi's husband, Edmond, was a prominent member of the minority Albanian Monarchist party and had suffered a period of harassment, including a number of violent beatings and death threats. In January 2000, their daughter Brikena was harassed at school by the secret services. On another occasion, Mrs. Panxhi was stopped in the street by some men and threatened. As the threats intensified, the family went into hiding. Mr. Panxhi was arrested in September that year, but after his release the family decided that their safety was not secure in their home country and they made plans to escape. Mrs. Panxhi, then pregnant with Grace, together with the two older children, left Albania in November, with the intention that her husband would join them at a later date when he was able to get enough money. There is no doubt in the Panxhi family's mind, and in the minds of all the many people who have taken an interest in their case, that they were in genuine fear of persecution and the threat of violence if they remained in Albania at that time.
Sadly, a short time after Mrs. Panxhi and her children had arrived in the United Kingdom, they were advised that Edmond Panxhi had been killed. It is difficult to imagine how the family must have felt: strangers in an unfamiliar country, their initial application for asylum refused, terrified of returning to their home and grief-stricken at the sudden, violent death of a beloved husband and father. However, it was their resilience and courage in facing up to that tragic news that so impressed the many, many people in Scotland who support their request to remain in this country. I very much hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), will agree to reconsider her Department's earlier decision.
Such was the tremendous response to the family's plight that a small number of local Glasgow people went to Albania on a fact-finding mission in June last year. They were led by the Rev. Bryan Owen, a Church of Scotland minister who has just retired after more than 30 years as minister of St. Rollox church. As you know, Mr. Speaker, he is a well-respected figure in the local Springburn community.
The group interviewed a large number of people in Elbasan and Tiran and received a great deal of corroboration of Mrs. Panxhi's story of the problems

1059
faced by the family before their escape to the UK. However, as I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate, it is difficult to discover hard evidence that can be put to a UK tribunal or court system. Although members of the fact-finding group could not prove that Edmond Panxhi was killed for political reasons, they were convinced that he was dead.
All the people who knew Edmond Panxhi told the group that he was a somewhat secretive person who did not tell others about his business, but that he was loving and caring to his family and could not have remained out of touch with them if he was alive. Members of the group were also told by all their Albanian contacts, including the Elbasan police, that he had absolutely no contact with crime and thus no reason to fake his own death.
Rev. Owen and and his colleagues spoke to a number of local people in the small village at Gjinar where the family had hidden in 2000. They confirmed that the Panxhi family had stayed with them and that during that time Mrs. Panxhi had been terrified of suffering further violence. In particular, she had been afraid of Colonel Koseni, the now discredited chief of police in Elbasan. I hope that the Minister will accept that the family's motives for leaving Albania were genuine and not economically motivated.
The Minister will be aware that, although there have been improvements in Albania, widespread corruption and violence are still common. Mrs. Panxhi fears greatly for the safety of her son, Enea. Albania is still blighted by a blood feud culture; when a son comes of age he is expected to avenge the death of his father. Commenting on the case, Jim Wallace MSP, Minister for Justice in the Scottish Executive, said that there was
"a very real danger that Enea will himself be murdered by his father's murderers before he comes of age, to pre-empt any revenge he may seek".
As I have already mentioned, despite the many harsh problems faced by the family over the last few years, their courage and dignity have impressed many. There has been widespread media interest in Brikena's musical talents. When she arrived in this country she spoke no English but she is now bilingual and has an exemplary record at her local school, St. Roch's secondary. She also studies violin at the junior academy of the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, where she was awarded a Wolfson scholarship last year. She was also among the three finalists for The Scotsman young achiever of the year award in November 2001, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will be aware, since I understand that he was one of the judges.
Brikena's violin teacher, Mr. Hugh MacGilp, who has taught young musicians for more than 40 years, has written personally to the Home Office on her behalf. He strongly believes that she has the potential to be a professional musician provided that she receives the level of support from which she currently benefits. Specifically, he pointed to considerable gaps in her knowledge when she arrived from Albania. The head of the junior academy has also written to the Home Office to confirm that despite the enormous pressures and uncertainties that she faces, she is making excellent
1060
progress and is developing a musical ability that will enable her to make a positive and constructive contribution to society in her later life.
If the family were to return to Albania they would meet extreme hardship. They could not expect accommodation or financial help from Mrs. Panxhi's family, as they are already living under straitened circumstances. Mrs. Panxhi would have difficulty in finding work while looking after a young baby and, in all likelihood, Brikena would have to leave school at the earliest opportunity to earn money, and her musical education would not continue.
A musical talent such as Brikena's is a rare gift. I played a musical instrument—not terribly well—at school but I watched one of my school colleagues develop her skills at the Royal Scottish Academy and go on to become a professional musician. Playing music well is a genuine joy, but that talent, especially for those who want to be classical players, needs a huge amount of work and practice from an early age.
The UN convention on the rights of the child speaks about the need to
"ensure that children will be able to develop talents and abilities to their fullest potential".
Of course, many children in today's world unfortunately never get the opportunity to develop their true talents, but to have been given that opportunity and then have it taken away is just as cruel.
Mrs. Panxhi and her family have made a real and positive contribution to the local community in Springburn and, if they had an opportunity to stay, would seek to be economically independent at the earliest opportunity. They have suffered great trauma in the past few years and wish only to live peacefully and quietly in our city. In Springburn, they have experienced some feeling of security, but they genuinely remain very afraid for their safety and future if they must return to Albania at this time.
I thank the Minister for taking further time to consider this case, and I ask her to consider the very strong compassionate reasons for allowing the family to remain in the United Kingdom. The people of Springburn and Glasgow have welcomed them and ask the Minister now to allow them to stay with us.
7.41 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: It is a very great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) in this debate, and I endorse everything that she has said about the case history of the Panxhi family. She was right to say that I had the pleasure of meeting them for the first time slightly more than 14 months ago, at The Scotsman young achiever of the year award in November 2001, when Brikena was one of the finalists. I therefore took an interest in their case. The hon. Lady has spelled out extremely well the circumstances that the family face.
I want to try to underline in some very brief remarks the compassionate grounds for ministerial intervention. Although I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that Valentina Panxhi has shown exemplary courage and fortitude, given the circumstances in which she has found herself, I want to speak about the three children in the case, because therein lies the strongest argument for intervening on compassionate grounds.

1061
First, Grace will be two years old this June. She was born, obviously posthumously, in Scotland. I know full well that being born in a country does not confer a legal right of citizenship, but I make the case that that young lady has no other circumstances or home but Springburn in Glasgow and, morally, she is as much a Glaswegian as you are, Mr. Speaker, and as much a Scot as I am. That is a consideration, because the world has moved on and that young child has been born in Glasgow, where she is being nourished and is growing up.
Secondly, Enea, who is nine years old, was mentioned by the hon. Lady, and I want to draw attention to the point that she made because it is fundamental. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest—it cannot be proven—that Mr. Panxhi was murdered for political reasons. Even if he was murdered for another reason, the Home Office case has rested on the argument at various times that, because Mr. Panxhi is dead, the rest of the family are no longer in danger. That is fundamentally mistaken, and I shall repeat the quote that the hon. Lady read out. No less a person than the Scottish Justice Minister, Mr. Jim Wallace, said that there is

"a very real danger that Enea will himself be murdered by his father's murderers before he comes of age, to pre-empt any revenge he might seek."
That culture of the blood feud is a very important consideration in this case, and I shall illustrate that by quoting a brief extract from an Albanian news service. It is dated 2 April 2002 and reads:
"Murder in Bajram: on Tuesday April 2nd the sister of the four Haklaj brothers, who have been murdered in blood feuds, killed two and wounded two others. One of the wounded was a passerby … a teacher … has stated that she will not marry nor will she die until she has taken revenge on the deaths of her brothers. This killing occurred at 12.00 midday in the middle of Bajram".
That illustration of the culture of blood feud must surely be a consideration in intervening on compassionate grounds. It is not the case, just because the father is dead, that the rest of the family are not in danger if they return to Albania.
Thirdly and finally, Brikena has been awarded a Wolfson scholarship to attend the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama. Such scholarships are not easily won or awarded. Obviously, I was hugely impressed not only by Brikena's talent, but by her having overcome considerable difficulties to gain that scholarship and reach the final of the young achiever of the year award. I cannot believe that Scotland is so overflowing with young talent that we can afford lightly to send back to Albania a young woman of such potential.
The underlying point that arises in respect of all three children and shines out in the family's story is the amount of support and succour that they have been given by the local community in Sighthill and Springburn. The hon. Lady mentioned the church connections. I have had the pleasure of visiting St. Rollox church and meeting the various people who have surrounded the family and given them such support.
It is not that long since we all thought—I know that you, Mr. Speaker, were deeply concerned about this matter—that we faced in Sighthill a particular problem that has been seen in many areas with regard to the influx of asylum seekers. That situation has largely been turned around in the past year by the strength, support
1062
and infrastructure of the local community. Indeed, only a few weeks ago, BBC Scotland broadcast a programme called "Rabbie's Bairns" that focused on the Springburn area of Glasgow. One of the children who achieved a high accolade in that programme was a young asylum seeker. The programme was so inspirational in showing the integration into local schools and the local community of asylum seeker children that it managed to win an award in celebration of the works of Scotland's greatest poet.
That is an illustration of how the community is supporting this and other families. I ask the Minister to consider whether the achievements of Springburn, which have been supported by so many good-minded and good-willed people, would be put at risk if we were to return this family to Albania, when there are so many arguments to suggest that an intervention on compassionate grounds would be not only appropriate, but undoubtedly the right thing to do.
7.47 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for the opportunity to debate this case, which is a very difficult one. Sadly, it is not by any means the only difficult case to have come across my desk. I know that it has gathered considerable support from the local community in Glasgow.
I shall begin by providing a brief background to the family's case. As my hon. Friend said, Mrs. Panxhi and her children arrived in the United Kingdom clandestinely on 9 November and made an asylum application the following day. As has been said, that claim was based on her husband's political activities. Mrs. Panxhi claimed that her husband was a candidate for the vice-presidency of his political party. She was interviewed a month later and a decision was taken to refuse her application on 15 December 2000. She appealed against that decision and gave oral evidence at her appeal in April 2001.
An independent adjudicator carefully considered Mrs. Panxhi's asylum claim, but did not feel that there was any merit in it. The adjudicator rejected her claim that her husband was a candidate for the vice-presidency of the party, further noted that she and her children had never been harmed in Albania, and also considered the family's rights under the European convention on human rights. He concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the Panxhi family could not lead a normal life on return to Albania, so he dismissed the appeal in May 2001. Mrs. Panxhi appealed to the immigration appeal tribunal, which upheld the adjudicator's decision in October 2001. She then applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Session, but that request was dismissed in January last year.
Mrs. Panxhi has had several opportunities to state her case to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. She applied for asylum in November 2000 and completed the appeals process in January 2002. During that 15-month period, she has been interviewed and has had two substantive appeals, which were both conducted by independent judicial adjudicators. She gave oral evidence and was given the opportunity to

1063
raise additional reasons why she should be allowed to remain in the UK. In fact, Mrs. Parixhi's case was dealt with under the one-stop appeals process, which required her to outline all the reasons why she should be allowed to remain. Furthermore, during the course of that process, and following representations by the Speaker and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, Mrs. Panxhi was invited to provide evidence that her husband was, as she claims, dead, but no evidence has been forthcoming.
I do not believe that Mrs. Panxhi or her children would suffer any ill-treatment should they be returned to Albania and I want to outline why I have come to that conclusion. The immigration appeal tribunal concluded that there appears to be
"negligible, or minimal, risk of ill-treatment of the appellant or family, either at the hands of the authorities in Albania, or at the hands of parties against whom the Albanian authorities would be unwilling or unable to provide effective protection."
Hon. Members know that the Government believe that Albania is safe. The objective country assessments indicate that the Albanian Government respect the rights of their citizens, and our statistics on asylum claims confirm that. In the past two years, 139 families have been returned to Tirana, and Albania has taken the first steps towards EU accession.
In terms of quality of life, I understand that the Albanian authorities provide at least eight years' free education. The main focus of support within Glasgow has been on Brikena's considerable talents as a violinist. I am aware that she has been awarded a music scholarship. However, I am told that opportunities exist within Albania for Brikena to develop her musical talents and that she gave up a place at a specialist music school before coming to the UK.
In summary, it is clear that the Panxhi's case has been carefully considered and that the decisions are right.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister concede that it might be difficult for Mrs. Panxhi to establish that her husband has been murdered? The murderers would be unlikely to advertise themselves to people who make inquiries. Does she accept the concerns outlined by the Scottish Justice Minister that if Mr. Panxhi has been murdered, his son might be at risk in Albania? Does she accept that there is a culture of blood feud in that country?
Beverley Hughes: If it is accepted that Mr. Panxhi was murdered, our approach would depend on whether that was as a result of persecution or a criminal matter that the authorities in Albania would be expected to respond to appropriately. Someone being murdered does not of itself engage the terms of the European convention on human rights. Whether a death constitutes persecution under the convention depends on the circumstances and the reasons why someone has been killed.
Mr. Salmond: Regardless of the circumstances of the murder, a blood feud is a blood feud. The example that I gave from an Albanian news agency was not of a political murder, but of a murder that was the result of a blood feud that had developed. The Minister is right about the convention, but the safety of the child
1064
returning to Albania would still be in question if it could be established that Mr. Panxhi was murdered. Does the Minister accept that that could be a danger?
Beverley Hughes: I have two points to make on that. It would depend on the ability of the authorities, and the judged ability of the authorities, to provide adequate protection and a proper system of criminal justice to deal with a risk that engages if not the convention, but a human rights issue in terms of a need for protection.
As I said earlier, I understand that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill are conveying the probably very sincerely held views of the family. However, the case has been examined thoroughly by a judicial adjudicator in an independent appellate hearing. The leave to appeal has also been examined by another tier of authority at the tribunal. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not for me or for him to judge the facts of the case. It has been through a proper process, and I have described the judgment that emerged.
I now turn to a point that is important in how we deal with such cases. On top of the process that I have described, there has been ministerial involvement since July 2001, when Mr. Speaker wrote to my predecessor and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan took up the case. The ministerial involvement continued when I took up my post and I met Mr. Speaker in January this year. At that meeting, I undertook to review the case again, and I did that. I went through it chapter and verse. I considered it very carefully, and that took me a long time. I went through all the evidence and all the determinations and gave it very careful scrutiny before deciding, at that time, to uphold the decision. I wrote to Mr. Speaker outlining why.
I understand absolutely the compassion and the good intentions that are motivating Members of Parliament and the local community, because I have been in the same position with similar cases with families in my constituency. I have seen many similar families in many similar circumstances who report similar experiences. The problem for me is that, although I can and do exercise discretion—that is allowed within the law—I have to do so on the basis of very exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances involve cases that have been through a proper judicial process in which a person is able to cross-examine, hear the cross-examinations of both sides—neither the hon. Gentleman nor I are able to do that—and come to a decision.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister will accept that any process is limited by the time available to interview and cross-examine. For example, the appeal tribunal of 19 September noted in its evidence:
"For all that was known"—
about Mr Panxhi—
"he might have died, for example, in a road accident."
That strikes me as a particularly crass way to comment on a case involving such emotions.
Any tribunal can interview people only over a period of time. The local community in Sighthill has known the family for a number of years. Does the Minister really think that, unless the family had impressed the community with the total veracity of their case, the

1065
community would campaign so hard and show such absolute determination in this case? Does that not weigh in her judgment if there is a balance of doubt?
With due respect to the Albanian schooling system, Brikena's scholarship to the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama is exceptional. It is an indication of the exceptional talent that the academy wishes to keep in Scotland. Does that weigh with the Minister in terms of compassionate grounds even for the length of the child's schooling and exercise of the scholarship?
Beverley Hughes: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I do not think that the extent to which a community takes to its heart a particular family can be a substitute for a proper judicial examination of the claimed facts of the case. The fact that a community does that is understandable. It means that they are a good family, that they are worthy people, that the children are talented and that the family have made connections and relationships in the community. Those are all very good things in their own terms. But that does not differentiate the family from many others, and it does not substitute for a fair and transparent process.
We must have a system that is open and fair, with decisions based on rational, defendable principles, so that people in similar circumstances can expect that they will be treated similarly. It would not be right, would it, to allow to stay those people who happened to have gained the support, for all the right reasons perhaps, of
1066
their MPs and local people, but to continue to return those who do not get such support or who do not have a campaign developed for them in the community?
As I said, there is discretion, and I exercise discretion, but very rarely. It must be on the basis of truly exceptional circumstances. When people have been through a judicial process, there must be exceptional circumstances to justify my intervention. The circumstances of this case, as worthy, as delightful and as talented as the family are—I have read all the press reports and seen the pictures; I am not trying to make the decision easy for myself by not getting to know something about the family—are similar to those of many other families who have already been returned to their home country or who will be returned in the future.
In conclusion, I have come, more or less, to a final decision. So that it is clear that I have completely exhausted the process, there is one particular piece of evidence that I will ask to see before finally making that decision—that is, the second piece of evidence to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan referred concerning the commentary on blood feud and the potential risk to the son. I will look at that further evidence. I do not want to raise hopes, but I want to be able to say that I have taken every opportunity to consider anything that might be relevant.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Animal Experiments
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Derek Twigg.]
9.30 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: I am delighted to be able to talk about this matter today because it is a burning issue for the development of science, technology and medicine in this country. Many people will pay attention to the issues that we highlight during this debate.
The treatment of disease during the past 50 years has led to dramatic improvements in the quality and quantity of life, not only in this country but throughout the world. There are still many diseases for which treatment is not yet available; for example, cancer, heart disease, strokes, Alzheimer's and so on. Research into such diseases is taking place, but we still do not have cures and treatments for them. Important issues have arisen concerning the drugs to treat infectious diseases, drug resistant micro-organisms and AIDS, not only in this country but in the developing world and the African continent. We are all interested in the role of the biopharmaceutical industry and the development of its drugs, its worldwide network and how it can produce drugs at a price that we can all afford. Research and endeavour into biotechnology and biomedicine will bring great benefits for humanity.
A major issue is the use of animals in research, which is sensitive and complex. As people will have seen in their morning papers, 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom population supports animal experiments if they are associated with benefits, particularly medical benefits, but some people in this country are violently opposed to any experiments. That debate burns below the surface of daily life in this country.
One group of protesters has a savage record in opposing animal experiments. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty—SHAC—has demonstrated violently and with a degree of terrorism that has been noted by the Government and the Home Office. However, that activity continues, and I want to speak about the group's behaviour because it is part and parcel of the debate.
SHAC has some devious tricks for annoying people. I have seen its website, and documents have fallen into my possession. Its campaigns include blockades and abusive phone calls and text messaging. We are used to that in parliamentary life, but people who work in our institutions, including not only managing directors and multi-millionaires but members of trade unions, have a right to go to work and carry out their endeavours, which they believe benefit mankind, without harassment. My hon. Friend the Minister and I belong to the Manufacturing, Science, Finance union—MSF.
242WH
It has campaigned for some time to protect its members in such institutions and has engaged with the Home Office on that.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: When reading about the opinion poll this morning, was my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was that a spokesman for one of the so-called, legitimate anti-vivisection charities, instead of calling SHAC terrorists, referred to its members as people who resort to more direct forms of action, and instead of condemning them out of hand, said that it was disappointing if SHAC's actions had led to a change in public opinion? Is that not disgraceful?
Dr. Gibson: Yes, that is a euphemistic way of justifying terrorist activities that no right-thinking individual in any part of this planet would ever support. One should be certain and sure-footed about condemning SHAC's activities. Let us look at them more closely.
A document entitled "This is your chance to drive them out" lists senior scientists, directors and staff at Huntingdon Life Sciences, and states where their children go to school, where they park their cars and so on. All such information is given freely. SHAC's job is to drive the company out of business, and it has had a certain amount of success. Recently, it forced auditors—of all people—to quit the firm and ask that the contracts not be renewed, so its terroristic methods and behaviour are effective.
A SHAC document that is not publicly available says:
"A simple tactic has been adopted recently. Pick your target. Throw a couple of rape alarms in their roof guttering or thick hedgerow, and leg it"—
in the middle of the night, obviously. It continues:
"Being kept awake at night hardly puts you in a good mood at work or with your family."
You will agree with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although presumably you are not kept awake at night by rape alarms and people throwing things in your guttering. The document also says:
"Another idea is to set off extra loud fireworks from a safe distance that will wake up the HLS scum and everybody else for miles around."
The authors are obviously nice people to take home to meet one's mum and dad for Sunday tea. The document continues:
"From the comfort of your own home, you can swamp all these"—
I shall not use the word, but it is something to do with illegitimacy—
"with send no money offers. They cause huge inconvenience and can give them a bad credit rating. Order them taxis, pizzas, curries, etc, the possibilities are endless. Above all, stay free and safe, and don't get caught. The more preparation you do the better."
SHAC goes on to say:
"Think, think, think. Don't lick stamps, use gloves when pasting stuff",
and so on. These people are organised and know exactly what they are doing. SHAC advises:
"No idle talk in pubs. Burn your shoes and clothes after your night of action".

243WH
Such activities may sound like a bit of fun or undergraduate play, but they are serious. They intimidate people, and they can lead to people with baseball bats getting stuck into managing directors, and so on.
I want the Government to address the problem and to think about new legislation to deal with such extremism. Could it be made illegal, for example, to incite or support such a campaign of harassment, the sole intention of which is to cause economic damage to a legitimate business? Could any demonstration against workers in the vicinity of employees' or directors' private residences be made illegal?
Existing legislation should be reinforced. The Companies Acts could be amended to protect the private addresses of directors, shareholders and those who work in such units. Legislation could be introduced or amended to oblige internet service providers to remove harassing materials from their sites. Current operations could be strengthened through long-term funding for an animal extremist taskforce structured along the lines of the public order section of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which has done sterling work on eliminating football hooliganism in this country. We must think beyond what we have done already, much as the research and medical community has welcomed that, and take the impending attacks a little more seriously. I hope that the Minister will engage with the problem.
Rodents, rabbits, fish, reptiles, amphibians and birds make up the majority of the animals used in experiments. I think that only 0.15 per cent. of non-human primates—monkeys and so on—are used. Such animals are used to understand basic biological functions, diseases and new treatments and to test the safety of new medicines. Nobody would ever say that such tests are perfect or that they give all the answers. Experiments have, however, contributed a lot to our understanding, and there are a few good tales about how successful they have been in preventing the hazardous effects on human beings of substances that have become medicines.
Working with animals is popular, and I ask myself why people want to do animal experiments. They do not do them for fun, and we deprecate the one or two cases that have been brought up in which there has been maltreatment of animals. People conduct such research because experiments with the whole organism tell them more than alternative methods. That has been the ideology for a long time. It may al so be easier to do animal experiments than to use other methods, although it has become less easy to set up mice colonies and so on, because of the fantastic cost and the dangers of such experiments.
It could be argued that a person testing a chemical, drug or medicine on cells in a tissue culture may miss the fact that the culture does not contain the molecules that bring about the effect, whether for good or for bad. The substance could be broken down in a whole-body environment into something else. That is a strong reason for carrying out studies on the whole organism. Of course, the whole organism is a very complex mechanism with immune responses and a functioning brain, and that has to be taken into account in the clinic.
244WH
There are good reasons for carrying out some animal experimentation. For example, it can be useful to know that some people may be more responsive than others to a particular drug. That can assist in making difficult medical decisions, and we know from the decisions of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence that some people will benefit from a drug while others will not. Sometimes that has to be worked out in an animal environment; it cannot necessarily be done only in a test tube.
It is argued quite strongly, however, that alternative approaches to those problems are bearing fruit, and I shall provide evidence of that. The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, or FRAME, has done sterling work over the years. Prominent individuals have been working hard to push their arguments on substituting for animals. They have developed practical and realistic ways forward, based on targeted research, without sidelining the need for regulations and the eventual requirements of industry.
Anyone now setting up a biomedical unit—I am involved in one with Paul Nurse in Norwich—has not only to decide whether animal experiments are necessary, as they may be for the reasons that I have already outlined, but seriously consider alternative methods of assessing compounds, and new technologies and treatments. There are political reasons for that, as well as good scientific ones, because it would be smart to show that one was taking alternatives seriously. One might also gain through a reduced use of animals by using those alternative methods.
It is interesting to note that, as a previous Home Office Minister told me the other day, money given by the Medical Research Council to look into alternatives to animal experiments has not been taken up. It is not fashionable or interesting, and there is a deep-seated feeling that it will not pay off. I shall now spend a little time telling the Chamber about the pay-off, and about what has been achieved with some of those alternative methods.
We seek to reduce the number of animals used in experiments. We want to refine the procedures to minimise the suffering of animals. We also want to replace the tests that are used to assess the safety or other qualities of a drug or treatment. FRAME has done much work on replacement therapies in association with a European organisation. They have done a great deal of work on tetanus vaccines, and they have found ways to assess whether drugs are effective without using whole animals. They estimate that 20,000 fewer animals a year have been needed as a result.
Various other tests have used mono-clonal antibodies, which were perfected at Cambridge university but developed in the United States because we are not that good at picking up on such discoveries. Again, a number of animals have been saved in those experiments. Reducing the number of animals used is a genuine pay-off. No doubt the Minister and others will say that the number of animals used in experimentation in this country is decreasing every year, and that is to be welcomed. The paper from the European centre states that sometimes other methods should be considered before one asks whether animals should be used.

245WH
I know of much research in which substitute tests are available, so that one need not perform tests on rabbits' eyes. I know a professor who does sterling work on cataracts, funded by a local hospital, among others. Eye cells in vitro can be used to explore the effects of drugs and chemicals that may eliminate cataracts. The LD50 test has been substituted. Irritation and skin toxicity tests have all been developed through work by FRAME and other organisations.
I went to a heartening meeting in the House this week involving a group from the tissue engineering and regenerative medicine centre at Imperial college London which is setting up a spin-off company. Its researchers are interested in stem cells—something pioneered in this country, and in which, with our legislation, we are well ahead of the world, with the involvement of people from the United States. The researchers want to transplant stem cells into degenerating tissue, and they have found a way to test whether that will work. They have produced what they call an organoid set-up: a three-dimensional structure of cells which sits on a scaffold and through which, for example, nerve cells can run. That mimics a total organ in a given situation.
The researchers have wonderful ways of examining the production of lung, bone and nerve tissue using stem cells, with a view to transferring them back into affected individuals. That will be a big news story for the United Kingdom, and the team is receiving a lot of support. Those involved are very pleased not to have to conduct animal experiments. People do not find it easy to inject animals, and they are glad of a substitute system that seems, at this stage, to be providing good information about treatments.
As well as being aware that tissue culture can avoid many of the problems of animal experiments, we should consider the reason for particular tests, and what tests may be appropriate for work similar to that being done by the groups at Imperial college London. Other groups have done work using tissue cultures. I did some work once on hair dyes and aftershave lotions, using yeast cells and bacteria as an in vitro assay system for mutations, the argument being that if those substances caused mutation in a single-celled organism they would be likely to have a carcinogenic effect too, since carcinogenicity equals DNA changes. Many tests of that kind have been carried out over the years. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) will talk about chemicals and tests for assessing them.
Computer programmes can now simulate a total organism system. Systems are beginning to be developed which make it possible to test how a particular molecule, with its physical or chemical properties, would behave in a given situation. Such work is certainly on the up and up. The trouble is that it is not yet sexy enough. Money is being provided, but we must induce in the scientific community a sense of those methods' reality and the way in which they function, as well as of the political message that such techniques send out.
As the world moves on into the arena of work on the human genome and that project produces more drugs and vaccines for diseases, we shall have to ensure their safety. Substitute tests will be a major part of that, and we must somehow speed up the current movement in the scientific community towards their use. I hope that the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister responsible for science and the Government's chief advisers on
246WH
science, will call a summit to talk about how we can make progress. We must tell people that alternatives are coming through and that there are now good results in experiments that do not need to use whole animals, thereby saving their lives. If there is fear, we will have to use more mice for human gene tests; there is no doubt about that.
Everybody wants to set up the so-called transgenic situation. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and I have had disputes about GM crops. I am sure that we will have the same dispute over GM animals, such as salmon and rodents, as more such animals are constructed. The debate will become even more intense, and there will be more demonstrations, but there will be increased production of drugs that are beneficial to people.
The world is in turmoil over this situation, and the Government now need to go the final mile and tackle the legality of the matter. They need to question scientific methods and induce the scientific community to take alternatives much more seriously than they have done. Groups such as FRAME and others need to join the more traditional groups in our universities and in the scientific and medical communities which are resistant to animal experiments. The time is right, both politically and scientifically, to move forward.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may be advisable if I draw all Members' attention to the fact that we generally start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the debate concludes. That leaves 39 minutes, and three hon. Members have sought to catch my eye. I ask them to bear in mind the passage of time when making their contributions.
9.51 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on seeking and securing a debate on a subject that is of particular interest and concern to many of our constituents.
I also offer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the Minister my apologies because I have to meet a delegation later, so I may have to leave before the end of the debate. If I do, I shall certainly read with great care all the remarks made after I have spoken because this subject happens to be of particular interest to me too. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister; the fact is that the sitting hours of the House have made life very difficult for Members who need to be in two or three places at once.
I had the privilege of being the founding chairman of the first all-party group for FRAME, and I am also the president of the Conservative animal welfare group. I have been living with this subject in the House for years, since 1985 in fact.
I suspect that everybody in the Chamber will agree that research into new compounds is essential if we are to advance modern medicine. For the foreseeable future, whether we like it or not—and I do not—much of that research will have to be carried out on animals. We need therefore to explore how that research can first minimise the use of live animals and hopefully then, with investment into alternatives, obviate it.

247WH
I must say two things in response to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). I concur entirely with his view of the activities of a small group, and it is a small group, of animal rights terrorists. I hesitate to call them activists; they are terrorists, as he said. Those who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare are certainly concerned about the welfare of laboratory animals, but they will have no truck with those who seek to pursue their cause outside the law.
Many people do not like animal experimentation at all. As one who does not, I must say that if it is to be carried out, which, for the foreseeable future, it is, I would sooner that it were done in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the world. I believe that in our standards of laboratory animal husbandry, and the care and attention that we give the subject, we are so far ahead of anywhere else that, purely in terms of animal welfare, simply banning animal experimentation, as some would do, would just move the problem from A to B. It would drive research away from the UK, destroying our research base, which is among the best in the world, and, far from enhancing the welfare of the animals that we seek to protect, it would worsen the conditions in which they are raised.
The hon. Gentleman has in his constituency the Pfizer research establishment, which employs many of my constituents as well as many of his. Hence I visit it regularly and always make a point of going to the animal house. I have no quarrel with the standard of animal husbandry there or at many other pharmaceutical research establishments that I visit in this country. In each case, the named vets are caring people who do their utmost to look, after the animals, and their laboratory technicians, far from being sadists, as some portray them, have a wonderful working relationship with the animals and care for them as well as the circumstances allow.
I would go further. I have been pleased to see, given the confines within which the debate is taking place, that there has been a dramatic improvement in the animals' caging and environment over the last 10 to 15 years. That is part and parcel of the work or organisations such as FRAME, which have pressed, on every front, to make sure that the number of animals used is minimised and their environment and husbandry are as good as possible.
We must press the case for research into alternatives. If we are not simply to move the problem from A to B, there has to be a global solution. Many of the requirements of the Medicines Control Agency, the Federal Drug Administration and their Japanese equivalent are no longer based on science; nor are they necessary. Everybody working in the field knows that experiments are carried out purely to satisfy outdated bureaucratic regulations. Thank God, as the hon. Member for Norwich. North says, that in the UK the Draize test and the LD50 test are a thing of the past. However, we should not delude ourselves; elsewhere, regulation for the sake of regulation means that far too many animals die.
248WH
The number of animals used in laboratories in the UK has increased, and it is not hard to determine why. First, more procedures are carried out, and every one is logged. Secondly, because of the quality of the UK research base much more research comes here—and I would sooner that it were done here than anywhere else. However, if we are to get to grips with the problem and make progress in the development and use of in vitro experimentation of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has referred to; if we are to see a greater dependency on molecular modelling; and if pharmaceutical companies are to be encouraged not to repeat research but to publish it, to share knowledge and, accepting the restrictions of commercial confidentiality, to make sure that no animal dies in a cause that has already been pursued by somebody else, not only in the UK but throughout Europe and then the world, we must have a common political will.
Sadly, I see little of that political will in the European Union or in other areas on which we shall not touch this morning. Again and again we have had fine words followed by little action. Let us take the despicable example of the cosmetics directive, which was passed and given a time scale for implementation. That time scale was then extended by several years, with the effect that cosmetic companies that had begun to invest heavily in alternative research because they thought that the end was nigh for the use of animals suddenly found that they had more time, so all the money was taken out again. Without funding, the little companies that had been set up to research alternatives to the use of animals for the cosmetic companies found themselves out of business.
If we are to crack the problem, first across Europe then worldwide, we have to have the political will to say, "Here is the directive; this is how long you may continue using this practice. After that there will be an alternative." That will compel those engaged in research into pharmaceuticals and domestic products—we must not ignore household products that must be tested—to comply with the directive. If we are to make real progress we must have the political will to set a deadline, but that in itself is not enough.
The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, which was established under the superb chairmanship of Professor Michael Balls, was starved of funds, in a classic example of a European institution kicking something into touch. The attitude towards the centre was very much, "Good idea; here's five bob to do it." That will not work. If we wish to will the ends, we must will the means.
Will the Minister ensure that his colleagues in the Council of Ministers take the UK argument, standards and aspirations to the EU to make certain that there is a political will and a sense of commitment to the research, validation and use of alternatives to animal experiments? Will he seek to ensure that the EU, through the Council of Ministers, presses our case at the World Trade Organisation and under the general agreement on tariffs and trade to obtain a worldwide perspective? Above all, will the Minister and his colleagues press the EU to stop wasting money on fancy schemes and start putting real resources into ECVAM and organisations like it so that they can carry out their work?
10.1 am
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Chairman. I agreed with—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be remiss in my duty were I not to remind the Chamber that when the House made the decision to hold these sittings it decided that some occupants of the Chair should be referred to as Deputy Speaker.
Dr. Ladyman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it was remiss of me not to have remembered that.
I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said. If he and I keep finding issues to agree on people will start to talk, so we shall soon have to find something on which to disagree. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate. I respect his stand on the issue; few Members are prepared to stand up and be counted on animal experimentation and the need to protect scientists. He is to be congratulated on being at the forefront of that campaign.
I hope that I bring three perspectives to the debate. The first is that of a bench scientist who carried out animal experiments. Secondly, because I developed an extreme allergy to lab rats, my bench science career came to a very sudden halt and I had to shift into computers. I spent the rest of my career before becoming an MP developing computer systems that are now regarded by many as the alternative to animal experimentation. I therefore know the limitations of animal experimentation and of the computer alternative to it.
Thirdly, I bring the perspective of a politician who, as the hon. Member for North Thanet said, represents an area where a company called Pfizer is based. It has more than 5,000 employees, and it is the biggest US investment in the UK. It is the world's leading drug discovery centre; its record for discovering medicines is better per pound spent and per employee than any other centre in the world. Its success has been largely dependent on its involvement in a whole range of drug discovery procedures, including not just animal experiments but alternatives to them.
As well as representing those 5,000 people, I represent constituents who are strongly opposed to animal experimentation and who provide me with many views and a great deal of information. It is clear to me that many of them misunderstand the way in which drugs are developed. They believe that drugs are largely developed using animals, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Large pharmaceutical companies and medical researchers in general do not want to carry out animal experiments because they are unpopular and expensive, and they have certain limitations. If we can find quicker and cheaper alternatives, they will be used.
When I started to work for the pharmaceutical industry, for Pfizer, we used to have to screen 12,000 chemical compounds to find just one that would ultimately become a successful drug that could be sold on the market. It is not possible to screen 12,000 chemical compounds using animal experiments. We must use robotics and in vitro tests to find a compound that has some sort of biological property. When such a compound has been found, three questions must be
250WH
answered. Is it safe? Will it work? How will it he delivered to the patient? Those three questions must ultimately be answered in relation to man, so most of the testing is done on man.
There is a famous three-phase process for developing a medicine. First, it is tested on healthy adults to see whether it is safe. Secondly, it is tested on a slightly wider group of adults who have the condition that the compound aims to treat to see whether it works. If it does, large-scale human testing is carried out to see what the benefits are and whether there are any side effects.
Between the mass of work testing the compound on human beings and the screening process that identified the compound, there is a period in which it is necessary to use animals, although it is unnecessary to use animals exclusively. Some work can be carried out during that period to discover how to formulate the compound, using computers or in vitro tests. Ultimately, however, some toxicology testing must be carried out on animals to see whether the compound is safe because, sooner or later, we have to give the compound to a human being and say, "Swallow this and see what happens." We cannot take that risk without first carrying out some basic testing on animals. We cannot work out what the formulation should be without having first tested the hypothesis and considered how the material is metabolised in an animal. That little piece of the picture, therefore, has still to be investigated using animals.
As the hon. Gentleman said, it is better that that investigation is carried out in the United Kingdom, where standards are higher and the law is tighter than anywhere else. If we allow that work to be exported, it will be carried out to a lower standard in other countries. There is considerable evidence that much of the investment in the pharmaceutical industry which could be directed here is being displaced to other countries by campaigns against animal testing.
There is huge investment by the pharmaceutical industry in alternatives, such as robotics and computers. As I said, I have been involved in both those initiatives. It is fascinating work, but what is the source of the information that allows us to build computer models and carry out in vitro tests? Most of it comes from animals themselves. It is not possible to make up that information or pluck it out of the air; it is based on previous animal experiments. We can and must create alternatives, but those alternatives are ultimately dependent on a willingness to do some testing on animals.
The hon. Gentleman referred to cosmetics testing initiatives. He is right to say that it has taken far too long to put those initiatives in place. I see no justification for developing cosmetics by using animals. I am sure that my constituents would agree with me on that, but developing medicines for human use is a different kettle of fish. Scientists and parliamentarians must ensure that our constituents understand that whereas alternatives are desirable and huge investment must be put into finding them, until they are found, our health depends on animal experiments, as do our industries.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will agree that we must constantly review legislation to ensure that we do not require animal experiments to take place unnecessarily and that, when alternatives are developed, they are acceptable under our laws. The Government

251WH
must also make sure that the right amount of finance is being put into developing alternatives. However, I ask the Minister to ensure that our laws to protect scientists are every bit as tight as our laws to protect animal welfare.
We must not tolerate terrorism against scientists and we must not tolerate people who prevent other business people from working. I refer to the ridiculous nonsense that has just happened in the midlands, where a policeman has had to pay £50 in compensation and apologise to a demonstrator whom he moved on, because a megaphone used in the demonstration was making a lot of noise. The person went to court and said that their human rights had been infringed because the policeman should have asked only the person with the megaphone to move on. That sort of nonsense has got to stop. It is up to the Minister and the Government to make sure that honest businesses and honest scientists, who are doing vital work, are protected.
10.11 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: It is obvious that we are dealing with an extremely emotive issue. It is also obvious that, in the past, we have used far too many animals in experiments, but I do not subscribe to the complete ban on animal experiments for which many organisations are campaigning. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) referred to SHAC, which is one of the more militant organisations, but there are others, such as the Animal Liberation Front. If those people keep campaigning vigorously for a complete ban on animal experiments, using their current methods, there is a danger that they will drive experimentation abroad. As my hon. Friends have said, we have some of the tightest legislation on animal experiments, which are controlled through the Home Office and other mechanisms, and driving experimentation into other countries would defeat the whole object of such campaigns.
I want to flag up another danger, which was emphasised by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. The process of applying for Home Office licences has become extremely bureaucratic. I have received complaints that it is taking much longer than it should for people working in the pharmaceutical industry to obtain those licences. I have also heard the contrary opinion from the Home Office that some applications are not well formulated and need to be returned, so I do not know where the truth lies. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that, because we do not want bureaucracy to add to the pressure from animal activists to drive pharmaceutical companies to do their work abroad. In fact, many jobs in this country depend on the pharmaceutical industry, which is one of our most profitable, earning money for the general good of the country.
Obviously, animal testing is extremely expensive. Not only do we have to breed the animals in controlled and licensed conditions, but the added security that is necessary because of the extremism that we have seen in the past few years costs a great deal. The good news, however, is that in the past 25 years the number of animal experiments has substantially decreased. I believe that it has gone down by about 50 per cent.; perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
252WH
In moving away from animal experiments to alternative methods, one of the barriers to change is the culture in which life scientists have worked for centuries. They must realise that there are alternatives and begin to explore them. Indeed, those who fund life sciences may need to consider switching their funding to those organisations that are researching alternative methods. We certainly cannot screen compounds on human beings, as we used to do centuries ago.
There is a lovely story about Basil Valentine, an alchemist, who was also the chef in a monastery, where he occasionally tested chemicals on his fraternal monks. He thought, erroneously, that putting an element called stibium into swill for the pigs had made them fatter, so he tried putting it into food for the monks and killed half his colleagues. That element became known as antimonk, for obvious reasons, and in turn as antimony. It is dangerous to stick things into human beings and it is probably safer to use animals for experiments.
In the 2001–02 Session, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee produced a good report, which made several recommendations. It stated that
"it is morally acceptable for human beings to use other animals, but that it is morally wrong to cause them unnecessary or avoidable suffering."
I agree with that. The Committee also stated:
"The UK should strive not for the tightest regulation but for the best regulation properly enforced."
It continued:
"There is scope for the scientific community to give a greater priority to the development of non-animal methods, and more consideration should be given to the pursuit of the Three Rs—Reduction, Refinement and Replacement."
Dr. Ladyman: Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I was, that the Lords Committee may have overlooked the fact that the law requires scientists to use alternatives whenever possible and to minimise suffering? It is a legal requirement on all scientists before they can get a licence to carry out an animal experiment that they should have explored the possibility of alternatives and taken humane issues into consideration.
Dr. Iddon: That is correct, but to be fair to the Lords Committee, it did not overlook that point, as my hon. Friend will see if he reads the report in full.
The milestone date is 1959 when William Russell and Rex Burch published a book entitled "Principles of Humane Experimental Treatment", which detailed reduction, refinement and replacement. In this debate we are discussing replacement methods, which include human and animal cells, lower organisms such as bacteria and yeast, and computer programmes to predict the effect of chemicals on complex biological systems.
I pay tribute to FRAME and other organisations that are trying to find alternatives to animal experiments, including the Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research and the Dr. Hadwen Trust. FRAME, to which hon. Members have referred, has research facilities at Nottingham university, where it has been based since 1981. As the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, it is represented in the House by an all-party group to which I belong.

253WH
I am hosting a reception for FRAME on 1 April between 4 and 6 pm in the Terrace Dining Room to celebrate 20 years of FRAME research, to which I invite all right hon. and hon. Members. FRAME was founded in 1969 by Dorothy Hegarty and Charles Foister, who started to raise funds to publicise the concept of replacement. It was one of the first organisations to represent the middle ground in the animal experimentation debate. FRAME's research programme at Nottingham university was established in 1982, and in the period 1983-86, it acted as principal adviser to the Government in framing the new legislation on animal experimentation. It is funded by donations from private individuals and companies and by grants from industry and Government. In 1983, it was the first organisation to receive a Home Office grant specifically for the development of alternative methods to animal experiments.
Fortunately, public pressure has resulted in a considerable reduction in animal experiments in this country, especially since the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was passed. In 1992, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, or ECVAM, which is based in Ispra in Italy, was established as a unit of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. That, too, was an important step forward.
In 2002, the European Parliament voted for an immediate Europe-wide ban on the sale of cosmetics, toiletries and ingredients that had been tested on animals. It is pressing for an outright ban, to be effective from 2004, on such products that have been tested anywhere in the world. However, it is running into some opposition. The European Council is unlikely to agree to the second proposal because it hopes that the World Trade Organisation will find an acceptable collaborative approach. The hon. Member for North Thanet said that we need political agreement throughout the world on these matters; a point of view to which I subscribe.
Unfortunately, there are two pressures for animal experiments. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to one: the human genome project. That will, I hope, lead to many new medicines, which will have to be tested to ensure their safety for use by human beings. The indications are that many new medicines will arise from that area of activity, so that will exert a huge pressure for animal experimentation unless we develop suitable alternative methods ahead of that research being carried out.
Another worry arises from the Copenhagen charter, which is supported by 80 consumer and environmental groups throughout Europe. In 2001 the European Commission published its "Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy". That White Paper proposes the establishment of a registration, evaluation and authorisation system—the so-called Reach system—which will require producers, importers and downstream users of chemicals produced in amounts greater than 1 tonne per annum to supply information on their toxicity to a central European Union authority by 2012. The supply of information on persistent organic pollutants and all carcinogenic, mutagenic and/or reprotoxic chemicals will be mandatory, irrespective of the production volumes.
254WH
Fortunately, FRAME has developed a strategy to implement a case-by-case application of the proposed timetable for the Reach system. That is important. I hope that the chemical industry will work with FRAME, ECVAM and other forward-looking organisations to implement the Reach system, or it will suffer dire consequences. ECVAM, with the help of its partners, including FRAME, has already produced a draft of a comprehensive strategy document intended to provide an introduction to the EU chemicals policy. It describes an integrated testing approach to assessing potential hazards to humans from exposure to chemicals, together with a survey of the current state of non-animal approaches to chemicals testing. That is all with reference to the proposed schedule for implementing the EU policy.
Apart from pharmaceuticals, only about 14 per cent. of manufactured chemicals have a minimum basic set of safety data. Many have come on to the market since 1981. In that year, the European inventory of existing commercial chemical substances, otherwise known as EINECS, was established. EU legislation requires any substance that is not on the list—new substances, in other words—and those that are to be sold in quantities greater than 1 tonne per annum to be sold only if a basic set of safety data is made available.
It is estimated that of more than 100,000 existing chemicals in production, about 30,000 that were on the market before 1981 will fall under the proposed EU legislation. The gathering of all the data to satisfy the legislation will require the use of a considerable number of animals unless alternative experiments are discovered by the organisations that I have mentioned. In 2001 the Institute for Environment and Health estimated that 12 million animal tests may be necessary. However, organisations such as Friends of the Earth have disputed that figure. It has been boiled down to the fact that a third of a million animal tests may be necessary to implement the EU directives on chemicals. That is a severe warning to the general public. Together with the human genome project, the chemicals directive would exert huge pressure for an increase in animal experimentation.
The Government have an important role to play. I ask them to consider funding alternatives to animal experiments to a greater extent than they already do. To be fair to the Government, they have increased the amount of money that they put into that area of activity. In 1997–98, the Government's budget to support the three Rs principle was £182,000. That is quite a small amount, but it has increased to £280,000 in the current year. It should also be remembered that the Government fund ECVAM through their contribution to the EU. However, I put it to the Minister that much more money should be put into research on alternative methods to animal experimentation.
We should also consider the continuing work of the EU research directorate-general. It has funded 35 projects, worth €43 million, through its quality of life programme, which is part of the fifth framework programme. The Commission addressed the use of animals in research in its action plan on science and society, which it presented in December 2002.
At present, many alternative methods to animal experiments are being examined. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North mentioned some of them.

255WH
However, it is not sufficient for a laboratory to produce an alternative method, whether it be the FRAME laboratory in Nottingham or any other, because that method must be validated. Validation of the tests that the alternative groups discover is critical.
A test must be accepted by international organisations so that there is consistency in non-animal testing methods throughout the world. Organisations such as FRAME lead the world in developing alternative methods and ensuring that they are validated. There are European validation centres—I mentioned the one at Ispra, in Italy—and there is also an American validation centre. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is also important in agreeing validation techniques for non-animal methods.
I would like to pay a compliment to the Medical Research Council, which, in the past, backed off from funding alternatives to animal experimentation. However, it recently made its first award of £200,000 to the defence science and technology laboratories at Southampton university. I applaud it for making that award, and hope that it will continue to fund alternative methods.
Mention has already been made of the LD50 test, in which compounds are fed in increasing amounts to a group of animals—usually 10 or a dozen—until half of them die. Millions of animals have been slaughtered through use of that test, which is now no longer used. I am pleased to say that the Draize test for eye irritancy, which caused the suffering of hundreds of thousands of animals, is also no longer used. Experiments to test a variety of potential new drugs have, been developed in a number of areas of medical research, including diabetes, cancer, sleeping sickness, dentistry, pain, cataracts, rheumatism, AIDS and pregnancy.
My argument is that although far too many animals have been used in experiments in the past, animal experiments cannot be banned completely, as the animal rights extremists seem to think. I am trying to publicise the middle way, which organisations such as FRAME and the others that I have mentioned are pursuing.
I hope that responsible Departments, including the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry, will also play their part and contribute financially to the work that is urgently needed to pursue more and reliable alternative methods for animal experimentation.
10.30 am
Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate and on his contribution. I also congratulate other hon. Members on their contributions in what has been a high-level and interesting debate. If the public were able to see such debates more often, they might have a higher opinion of Members of Parliament.
I abhor animal experiments and long for the day—which will eventually come, although perhaps not in my lifetime—when animal experiments are a thing of the past and looked back on with as much curiosity as that with which we look back on sending children up
256WH
chimneys. That may be some time away, as it cannot be achieved overnight, but that must be our long-term aim. I want to spend some time developing the points made by other hon. Members and examine the obstacles to reaching that goal.
One obstacle is the small criminal element, which has been referred to by other hon. Members, that has brought the legitimate and worthy campaign for an end to animal experimentation into disrepute. Let us be clear: the activities of that small minority, who have engaged in disgraceful criminal activity, have not only been indefensible, but set back the cause. Those of us who argue for a move away from animal experimentation have been inconvenienced and disadvantaged by those persons. Their activities have been counter-productive as well as criminal.
I have great difficulty in understanding how those who pretend to want to defend animal life can be so cavalier with human life. We should try to defend all life, and I concur with other hon. Members who said that members of the science community who conduct legitimate activities are entitled to do so without any expectation of intimidation, which has sadly not always been the case.
When I say that some campaigns have been counter-productive, I mean that they have affected Government, who have had to slow down. I do not blame the Government for that, as they have had to divert their attention to what is now a law and order matter. We have spent some time today talking about that, so the debate has been on law and order as well as animal experimentation. That is regrettable. I know that one of the Minister's predecessors felt frustrated that he was being diverted down that road, instead of taking matters forward as he wanted and as all hon. Members would endorse.
Another limitation is the fact that animal experimentation is still dealt with by the Home Office when all other animal matters are concentrated in DEFRA. I had some fun in a previous Adjournment debate when I pointed out where all the animal responsibilities lay across Government—it was a right mess. A departmental reorganisation has since been undertaken—I would like to think, partly as a result of that debate—and the matters are concentrated with DEFRA. That is much better, and any animal welfare Bill introduced by the Government will show that. However, animal experimentation is an exception. It is still under the Home Office because of the law and order importance that must be attached to it.
It is also more difficult for those of us who want to articulate alternative views to do so, because we are always charged, wrongly, with defending the people engaged in criminal activities—that applies to Ministers as well as people such as me. We need to say that animal experimentation is not perfect and that the sooner it can be replaced with better alternatives, the better. The House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures report says on page 39 that
"all sides of the debate on animal procedures say that animals are highly imperfect models. It will be for the benefit of science, and ultimately of human health, if better methods of research and testing could be developed … It is also important for reasons of good science. Replacement in vitro tests tend to produce less variable results than animal tests."

257WH
I do not want anyone to believe that those who believe in the traditional animal testing are on the side of good science while those who advocate alternatives are on the side of bad science. That perception is sometimes created, quite wrongly. The Chamber should send that message today. We all agree on that.
The outdated regulations to which the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) referred, in a powerful contribution, are another obstacle to moving towards an ending of animal testing. I hope that the Government are considering them. Like the previous Government, they always say that they want to eliminate red tape and bureaucracy. Indeed, they set up a unit to do so. I do not know whether it is still there or whether it has been swallowed up in its own efforts to reduce bureaucracy. In any case, there are outdated EU regulations that require animal tests. They are hard to justify. The pharmaceutical industry itself has drawn attention to some of those tests and said that it could do without them. There would be no loss to the protection of human health if they were removed. I hope that the Government are identifying some of those outdated EU regulations. If they could be swept away it would benefit not only animals, but the scientific community. Businesses would benefit too, for that matter, by cutting costs. It is a win-win-win situation.
The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) was right to identify the EU chemical review and the human genome project, which make the need to identify and then eliminate those regulations even more important. As the hon. Member for North Thanet said, there is a lack of co-ordination within the EU that must be sorted out. There is still a different view on how animals should be regarded. Denis Healey always said that views on animals changed north or south of the olive line. I do not know whether that is accurate, but it is a reasonable proposition.
When I went to Brussels recently and met relevant people from the Commission to discuss, among other things, animal issues, I was told that one of the main obstacles to securing agreement on the cosmetics directive was the Department of Trade and Industry. While some people in government are beavering away trying to do the right things, others are perhaps taking a slightly different view and not helping. That underlines the need for co-ordination across Government.
Freedom of information is a key aspect to moving matters forward, both to share data to prevent duplication—we are making progress on that but not enough—and to identify alternatives. We must ensure that the world at large is aware of those alternatives and we must also subject the current tests to public scrutiny so that they can be justified or otherwise. Can the Minister say anything about section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which has been a long-running issue in Government? He will know that many have argued for its repeal, including the House of Lords Select Committee in its report.
It is possible and desirable to have more information published about the animal experiments that are taking place without—this is important—endangering the lives of those who are conducting them. It seems perfectly possible to have more data released without necessarily releasing data about the individuals who carried out those experiments. That seems a sensible compromise. I cannot understand why the Government said in their
258WH
response to the House of Lords Select Committee report that they wanted to consult further on that. We have had a great deal of consultation on that over many years with successive Ministers and over successive Parliaments.
What is the time scale for that review and when do the Government expect to reach a conclusion? I hope that it will be in line with the House of Lords Select Committee report. I also hope that they will resist that Committee's recommendation that activities involving genetically modified animals, which are bred but not otherwise used in regulated procedures, be excluded from the Home Office statistics. I welcome the Government's response that that is not necessarily their view on that. There certainly needs to be full data on animals that have been involved in experimentation, even those that have been bred and subsequently discarded. The overbreeding figures should be produced too, as part of the process of knowing what is going on. The more information we have, the better. I hope that the Government agree.
Finally, what progress has been made in establishing a centre for the 3Rs, following the House of Lords Select Committee report recommendation, which the Government accepted? I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. Although £280,000 is an increase on what the Government inherited, and it has been increased above inflation, it is a drop in the ocean. If the Government can find blank cheques at no notice for the millennium dome or to bail out British Energy to the tune of £650 million and, dare I say it, billions of pounds for Iraq, I am sure that a couple of million pounds here or there for alternatives to animal testing would not come amiss.
10.40 am
Mr. James Paice: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on obtaining the debate. His two doctor colleagues have added much to the scientific expertise and knowledge available on the subject.
Hon. Members will know that there is occasionally debate among ministerial teams—there certainly is in Opposition teams—as to who will respond on a particular topic. I volunteered for this one because the issue is of genuine concern to me, although I do not have the expertise of some who have spoken. I welcome the Lords Select Committee report; it is balanced and brings a sense of proportion to what is often an emotional issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, we must all look forward to the day when we can do away with animal testing. However, it is unrealistic to expect that to happen quickly. It is crucial, as the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) said, to understand the importance of animal testing in ensuring that the research, when it is translated into new compounds for medical purposes, is safe for humans. It always astonishes me how many people who want to ban animal experimentation would not dream of taking a drug that had not been properly validated as safe for humans, without necessarily understanding the role of animals in that process.
I greatly welcome the reduction in animal experimentation—my information is that it has been 50 per cent. over 20 years. The BioIndustry Association has welcomed the report and that reduction, and has

259WH
made the point that over 80 per cent. of medical research does not involve animals. We must get the matter in proportion. My constituency, surrounding Cambridge, is at the centre of much of the work. Although Huntingdon Life Sciences is in the adjoining constituency, many of its staff are my constituents. Many other companies involved in pharmaceutical and biotechnological research are in my area—for obvious reasons, I shall not put their names on record. Some do their own animal experimentation, many more contract it out; it is of huge importance in the locality. Just outside my constituency is the proposed new site for Cambridge university research.
When I visit the businesses and operations in my constituency, I always ask about their use of animals in research. The constant refrain is, "Believe me, Mr. Paice, if there were an equally good alternative, we would use it." The cost of using animals is immense. Therefore, the suggestion that scientists use animals because they cannot be bothered to develop another test, they are not interested or they gain personal satisfaction from experimenting on animals is nonsense. It is terribly expensive and if there were an alternative it would be used.
The role of FRAME has been discussed by many. The hon. Member for South Thanet pointed out that even if one develops new tests, the only way to ensure that they are equally satisfactory is to validate them against tests using animals. Those messages are not sufficiently understood.
As has been said, the level of legislation in this country is extremely high. We have all visited such facilities and all recognise that there are many obligations on their owners in relation to husbandry. I would go so far as to say that most animals in those facilities are kept in far better conditions than the average pet is and, apart from the experimentation, probably live a more satisfying life.
Section 24 has been raised, and was raised in the Lords Select Committee report. I am all for openness and do not believe in secrecy other than on the ground of public safety, yet I am concerned about the matter. Although I strongly welcome the Government's review of section 24, I hope that they will bear in mind the need to ensure public safety and the safety of everyone involved in that review.
That leads to the issue that has perhaps blighted the debate, but which is an essential part of it: the activities of extremists. Although all hon. Members present this morning have rightly condemned them, what the hon. Member for South Thanet said in an intervention is terribly important. It is sad that many of the moderate organisations do not sufficiently condemn the extremists, who therefore give everyone a bad name. Many of my constituents have been physically attacked—of course that is an offence, although what leads up to it is not necessarily so—intimidated and terrorised in the way that the hon. Member for Norwich, North described. That is wholly unacceptable. It is also important, however, that the people who work in such facilities are not the only people who are affected. As the hon. Gentleman said, all the other organisations are affected too. It is disgraceful that, as auditors, Deloitte and Touche capitulated so quickly.
260WH
Where do such activities stop? What about a tanker driver who is delivering fuel? What about the guy who might want to do a bit of building work? The Government should look at the issue of at-risk directors, which was a sensible step forward. However, the Government need to consider extending the list of people whose names should be kept secret and not on the public register, because the problem goes much further than simply the directors of HLS or AN Other research company. All the others who are involved are affected.
I encourage the Government to look at legislation relating to the numbers of people who gather together. It does not take very many people gathering on one's front path to cause intimidation. We should consider reducing the number from 20 to something much smaller. The situation is terribly difficult for people and their families. It is more than distressing: it is driving people to take their careers abroad, which we certainly do not want to encourage.
That leads to my final point, which is to endorse the comment that so many hon. Members have made this morning, but which cannot be over-emphasised. It is far better that such research is done in this country under our strict controls than to let SHAC have its way and close down HLS, which would not save a single animal or reduce research, but would simply ensure that research took place abroad under less strict regulations and that more animals suffered. That would be the outcome if SHAC had its way. Let us work to reduce animal experimentation in this country, but ensure that we keep it in this country. The best way of doing that is to continue in the same way, using the Act introduced by the previous Conservative Government, with the changes made by the present Government, to protect those who work in or derive their income from such businesses. I urge the Minister to consider further what can be done to protect direct employees and people who have any business relationship with such companies, all of whom are being victimised by that hideous group, which claims to act in the name of animal welfare.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate every hon. Member who has taken part in this debate and echo the points that have been made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about the high standard of the debate, which is due to my well qualified hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), and the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who has been active in the area for many years and has developed much expertise. The contributions from the Back Benches brought a level of knowledge to the subject that is unrivalled in any other debate in which I have participated.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North on securing this debate and FRAME on inspiring it. FRAME has worked for 21 years to try to develop alternatives to animal experimentation and has done more to reduce the amount of suffering and the number of animals used in procedures than any of the activities of the organisations that the Chamber has unanimously condemned today.

261WH
I want to expand on that subject, because it is extremely important. It was said, rightly, that only a very small number of people behave in such a way as to bring into disrepute other organisations with a justifiable case to argue, and they distract the Government from issues that they want to get on with. We must always try to guard against that. However, when we say that an extremely small number of people is involved, we must not lose sight of the fact that there is, if not wide support for, at least ambiguity about their activities in other organisations and sections of the media, and a lack of understanding about exactly what they are about.
We must try to ensure that everyone who has to deal with such cases, whether the police service, the Crown Prosecution Service or the courts, is aware of their activities. We must develop an understanding of what those people are doing and their methods, and I hope that some of the issues raised this morning have advertised that. It concerns me greatly that people make monetary contributions to organisations when they cannot have any knowledge about how that money will be used and what will flow from their contributions. They believe that they are supporting effective activities to reduce the suffering of animals in experimentation, but they may be supporting a bunch of cruel and villainous terrorists in their appalling activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet referred to a specific case, but Ministers cannot comment on individual cases even when they seem to be beyond understanding. However, he flagged up the need to ensure that everyone involved—the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the courts—is aware of the background of such cases and the sort of activities involved. I have subjected myself to listening to the plight of people who work in the industry. I am not referring exclusively to top-flight directors or well qualified people who can take their expertise abroad. I am talking about ordinary working people who have been consistently and repeatedly targeted in their homes, intimated, violently attacked and put in terror by an organisation that is an absolute disgrace. We must do everything that we can to put a stop to that.
Picking up the question that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked, we are considering how we can strengthen the legislation. We need to understand some of the logistical problems that the limits on section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 place on rural police forces where it is harder to pull the necessary numbers together at short notice to deal with large demonstrations. It might be easier for larger forces in more concentrated areas.
We need in particular to make absolutely certain that we are doing the maximum possible to drive out the growing problem of targeting people and their families in their homes. Targeting their private lives is beyond the pale. We need to look at what we can do to strengthen the regulations and the operational procedures.
Within the National Crime Squad, we have set up a taskforce to deal with the extremists. We will be following that through, but the media and other people
262WH
have responsibilities. They cannot report people as if they are buccaneers on the Spanish main. They must be aware of the disgraceful activities and behaviour and the anti-democratic methodology of such people, and they must be prepared to condemn them in the terms that all hon. Members have been prepared to do this morning.
A problem associated with that, which some hon. Members have raised, is the issue of openness. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) raised the matter. I agree that if we are to be effective in persuading the public that we are doing everything possible to reduce unnecessary animal experimentation, we must actually be doing it. We must be as open as we possibly can about what takes place, why and in what circumstances. I agree in principle that openness is an absolute given and that we ought to be trying to drive down that road.
I do not believe that section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 will make any difference to the amount of information put into the public domain, but it has become a totem for both sides in this argument. However, I am not prepared to proceed with its removal if it undermines the confidence of the people who are doing the work that we are talking about. We must carry people with us and convince them that we are not putting them in any jeopardy.
As our response to the Science and Technology Committee report said, we plan to publish summaries of licences. That will do much more to put real, usable information into the public domain so that people can get a better understanding of what is being done and why than section 24 itself can. However, I am not prepared to push ahead with the removal of the section when confidence is so fragile among many people working in the area because of the activities of the people about whom we have heard today.
I know that I will not be able to deal with the other issues in the time left. I promise to go through Hansard afterwards, because so many important issues have been raised. I will respond to all those who have participated.
We do much to try to reduce absolutely the number of animals used in procedures in this country. The statistics show that the number of genetically normal animals being used annually went down from 2.27 million in 1995 to 1.74 million in 2001, a drop of 23 per cent. The commercial sector, whose animal use has halved over the years despite increased investment and activity, is to be congratulated on that. However, we must also point out to people, as has been said today, that no one conducts these procedures if alternatives are available. I have been visiting these establishments since I held my present responsibilities and I can see that clearly. People are desperate to develop alternatives.
We invest far more than the £280,000 that pays for the committee. Our estimate, which can always be shot at, is that out £10 million of Government money goes into the reduction of animal procedures—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up, and we must now turn our attention to the next topic.

Warsaw Convention
11 am
Mr. John Smith: I want to focus on article 17 of the convention, which concerns airline passengers' health. However, I am not sure that I should be speaking on health issues this morning, as I have the most appalling flu. I apologise if I am not as coherent as I would like to be.
The purpose of this short debate is clear and simple, but important: to point out to the 55 million airline passengers who travel abroad from this country that the airlines that carry them have no liability for their health. I heard the tail end of the previous debate on animal welfare—ironically, airlines do have a liability for the health of the animals that they carry: they must travel in an area that would accommodate at least twice their own body weight and size and must be fed, watered and exercised regularly. That courtesy is not extended to human beings transported on British airlines, because of the absurd anomaly in the Warsaw convention.
The Warsaw convention was introduced in October 1929, when air travel was in its infancy. It was a dangerous and novel activity and, rightly at the time, the countries that wanted to govern it internationally recognised that it had risks. They introduced limited liability, and it is absurd that it continues to this day. It has been updated on several occasions since 1929, in particular in the Hague protocol of 1955, in the early 1960s and most recently in Montreal in 1999—that update awaits ratification. However, updating the convention does not place a responsibility on airlines for the health of their passengers.
I place on record my thanks to the Department for Transport, which I congratulate on its announcement last week that it will take the earliest legislative opportunity to put a statutory responsibility for aviation health on the Civil Aviation Authority. The proposal will be the first such in the world, and it is to be welcomed.
The Department announced that one of the responsibilities will be to set up an aviation health unit at CAA Gatwick, funded from a levy from the airline industry. The main focus of the unit will be matters that affect aviation health and research. It will be the first port of call for inquiries and give advice to passengers and crew on aviation health issues. It is a most welcome development, and it took courage and leadership to announce the proposals. That is why the Government should take a leading role in calling for the revision of article 17, which has been described as a licence to kill for the airlines. We know, almost without doubt, that more passengers die through ill health—in particular from thromboembolic disease in long-haul international air travel—than die in accidents.
However, under article 17, airlines are responsible only for death or serious injury caused by an accident on a plane or while getting on or off a plane. They have no liability for the health of their passengers. That is absurd. It was not absurd in 1929, when they were still flying biplanes, few people paid to travel by air and cabins were not pressurised. However, in 2003 55 million people fly and airlines have total—total—control over the environment in which they do so, and it is nonsense to say that they have no responsibility for
264WH
passengers' health. Employers have, quite rightly, responsibility for the health of their work force because of the control that they have over the work environment.
Airlines, however, do not have a liability for the health of their passengers, apart from a common-law duty of care. Not merely do they control what one can do on an airplane, where one sits and how one sits, what one eats and drinks, they control the very air that one breathes. They control the amount of oxygen in that air, and they control the pressure in a cabin. All those factors can have medical and health consequences. We know that until the mid-1980s airlines used to pump fresh air into cabins; now, however, they recycle old air through filter systems. Evidence suggests that that merely recycles microbes and germs that can infect passengers and can have serious health consequences.
That is one example, but the Minister will be aware that my primary concern is deep vein thrombosis. The incidence of that dreadful killer condition, which could be—and I stress could be—killing up to 1,400 passengers a year in this country alone, is increasing. That is a fifth of all those who die of DVT or pulmonary embolisms in this country. I must point out that 80 per cent. of all deaths from this condition are clinically silent. That is because deaths from it are diagnosed only through post mortems and there are not enough post mortems to identify all the tragic deaths from this condition.
I am involved in this campaign and I chair the all-party group on flight-related DVT because one of my constituents died in the most tragic circumstances. However, the real issue is that his family would have had no idea of the cause of his death had it not been for a chance exchange with a consultant pathologist. Deep vein thrombosis did not go on the death certificate and there was no mention of the death being related to travel. However, it is almost certain that travelling long distances in cramped conditions on aircraft causes blood clotting in one in 10 passengers and potentially fatal deep vein thrombosis in one in 40, according to the work of John Scurr.
However, I will be the first to admit that much more research must be done. I have called for such research and have placed on record my thanks to the Government for contributing a substantial amount of money to the World Health Organisation's research into deep vein thrombosis and air travel. We know that in the 1980s the average pitch in an aircraft—the distance between seats—was about 36 inches. That is not as much as is required for an animal, as I said earlier, but a little more space for people to move about. The average pitch now is about 30 to 31 inches, and, bizarrely, the statutory limit is even lower.
A recommendation was made recently to increase the pitch on aircraft but not in the health interests of passengers, despite the fact that being cramped like sardines in the seats causes the blood pooling in the bottom of the ankles, which in turn causes the clotting. That is the most dangerous situation and is either the primary cause of deep vein thrombosis in air travellers or at least a secondary but important cause. It is a major health issue that the airlines are allowed totally to ignore because of an anachronistic convention that was agreed at the beginning of the previous century. Given the Government's track record in the field of aviation

265WH
health—their recent announcements and response to the excellent House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report of two years ago, which called for several measures to be introduced to protect passengers—they should consider showing leadership in the world in calling for the removal of the nonsensical protection for airlines.
When the average airline passenger in this country picks up their ticket and looks on the back of it, they will see a copy of the absurd Warsaw convention, but I doubt that they read it or understand its implications. It is a complex convention, and I am referring to only one small article, but it places a limited liability on airlines in many areas, including on the damage to or loss of luggage. I am sure that many hon. Members have been through the rigmarole of finding luggage, because the airlines are protected. They should be protected no longer, especially from prosecution or legal action for endangering the lives of their passengers by exposing them to deadly health risks, the most important of which is deep vein thrombosis.
When the aviation health unit is up and running, new legislation is introduced to give a specific responsibility to the Civil Aviation Authority and one Minister has overriding responsibility for aviation health issues, I predict that that Minister will be become known as the Minister for DVT and the unit will become known as the Department of DVT. That is for a simple reason. In the past two years, DVT has become the most important health concern of the general public about the risks that they take when boarding an aircraft for a long-haul flight.
It is important that the travelling public be made aware—I repeat this, because the message must get across—that the airlines do not have liability for their health. A recent case was brought, unsuccessfully, in the High Court by Des Collins of Collins Solicitors against 28 airlines, on behalf of many victims of that dreadful condition and their families, some of whom I know personally. They did not go to court to argue that their relatives had died and suffered because of that condition, which affects one in 40 of all people who fly, nor because they believed, rightly, that they should be compensated for the death and misery that had been caused by boarding an aircraft for long-distance travel, unaware of any risk. The case went before the court so that it could be argued that flight-related deep vein thrombosis was an accident, as defined in article 17 of the Warsaw convention.
The solicitors acting on behalf of the families, and some of the victims themselves, knew that they had no other way of suing airlines for placing people at risk and causing so much damage. It is worth bearing in mind how much damage can be caused by a deep vein thrombosis, which is a very large blood clot. It can cause tremendous injury and result in lengthy periods of medication if it does not move to the lungs, heart or brains and kill the sufferer. We are talking about something deadly, for which the airlines currently take no responsibility. It could be argued that those airlines have a licence to kill.
The Minister has an excellent track record in matters of this kind. I am the first to admit that in today's debate we are just highlighting the problem, and that it could take many years to make the appropriate change to an international convention. It could be a long struggle.
266WH
However, we must raise the flag now, to show that there is an issue to be dealt with. More people die from the condition than die in air accidents or crashes. Some responsibility lies with airlines for the latter, but no such responsibility—no statutory liability—lies with them for the health of their passengers. That should change.
11.17 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) on securing this important debate and on the campaign that he has waged on deep vein thrombosis. His interest sprang originally from the tragic circumstances affecting some of his constituents. I recognise that he is acting not only on their behalf but more widely on behalf of all those who travel by air. He chairs the all-party group on deep vein thrombosis awareness, which has done much good work to raise awareness and has quite properly lobbied the Government to take further action. I congratulate him on his vigour and hard work.
The Government share my hon. Friend's concern about the health of air passengers. We can claim with truth that the United Kingdom has led Europe, if not the world, in focusing attention on aviation health and taking positive steps on a range of issues. Three years ago, we received the excellent report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, entitled "Air Travel and Health". That was arguably the widest ranging and most authoritative study of aviation health ever carried out. It contained a sequence of well-researched and supported recommendations aimed at Government organisations and the airline industry.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, as it was then, accepted nearly all the recommendations that were aimed at the Government and with the Department of Health set up the aviation health working group to oversee the taking forward of the Committee's recommendations. That body, which includes representatives from the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive, has met regularly since then. Representatives of the airlines, airline staff associations and, most important, consumers are invited to join every other meeting of the group, sometimes with expert scientists or medical practitioners, to create a broad forum for the discussion of aviation health issues.
The group focused initially on the dissemination of sound information to passengers and on research matters—the two priorities identified by the Select Committee. Recently, however, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, announced plans to set up an aviation health unit within the Civil Aviation Authority, to become a source of technical expertise. The unit, which will be based at Gatwick, will act as a focal point for aviation health issues. It will offer advice to air passengers and crew and provide technical input for international organisations. It will also investigate potential new health concerns, handle public inquiries and identify research priorities. As aviation health is likely to remain a matter of continuing political concern, Ministers will continue to take a close interest. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan will bring it to our attention, should we lapse.

267WH
The group will provide a strategic policy lead and will fulfil what I believe will remain a highly important role. The CAA will recruit someone to head the unit as soon as possible. For the time being, it will be funded by the Department for Transport. As soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises, the CAA will be given statutory duties on aviation health, allowing it to fund the unit's work out of charges imposed on the aviation industry. As far as I know, the unit will be the first Government-run institution of its type in the world and it is a significant step forward. The pressure put on the Department by my hon. Friend has been helpful in taking that forward.
I said that one of the priorities that we would address was the need, identified by the Select Committee, for further research into possible links between deep vein thrombosis and flying. We have yet to see any definitive research-based evidence that authoritatively establishes a causal link. Based largely on the House of Lords report, we persuaded the World Health Organisation to initiate a major research programme. Central to that is a large epidemiological study to investigate whether air passengers have a greater incidence of DVT than non-fliers.
The first part of the project has secured €3 million of funding, the lion's share being provided jointly by my Department and the Department of Health with a contribution from the European Commission. Regrettably, other countries in Europe and elsewhere declined to provide funding, but the airline industry is making a significant input by providing access to flights and passengers and other forms of co-operation.
The project is scheduled to last for two years and the results are expected at the end of the next year. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we will need to be certain of a link between the aircraft cabin environment and the incidence of deep vein thrombosis before we can think of making changes to air carrier liability. If the research shows such a link, the action for which my hon. Friend argued so strongly today could be carried forward.
For some years, most airlines have included health advice in the information that they provide to passengers. As the airlines cannot be expected to cover every eventuality or condition that might occur, that advice has tended to be broad and non-specific. Passengers have a responsibility to ensure that they are sufficiently fit to fly, but the Government agreed with the Select Committee that more should be done to ensure that passengers have as much sound information as possible on which to base their travel plans and on which to decide whether they are fit to fly.
In 2001, the Government therefore issued their own advice on travel-related deep vein thrombosis. That advice has been made available to the public through NHS Direct, the internet, the airlines and health services. It provides further information about DVT, based on the current state of knowledge, including setting out those categories of people who are more at risk than others, and gives practical advice about how air passengers on long-haul flights may reduce the risk of getting that blood-clotting condition. My hon.
268WH
Friend will probably agree that the major risk is not to people on short flights—holiday flights—within Europe, but to those on longer flights.
The advice describes, for example, simple in-seat exercises that all air passengers should consider doing. All UK long-haul carriers have produced expanded and improved information for their passengers, in the form of pamphlets, videos or announcements, incorporating the material contained in the Government's advice.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the air circulated in cabins. My information is that 99 per cent. of particles are filtered out of the air that is recycled around the aircraft. He also mentioned the on-seat pitch: we need more knowledge about that. It is not only a question of "economy-class syndrome", because incidents have also occurred in business class, where people have more room. We need more research to inform us on the matters raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend explained why he thinks that the Warsaw convention is unduly protective of airlines, particularly in the light of the recent High Court ruling to which he referred. Although he rightly spoke of the convention as the international agreement that is in force, the key legal instrument is now the Montreal convention, to which he also referred. The Montreal convention, which is expected to come into force later this year, consolidates and updates all the earlier Warsaw-based rules. The adoption of the Montreal convention in 1999, within the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, concluded a period of intense, and at times difficult, negotiations to forge worldwide consensus from a range of divergent views.
In many ways, the Warsaw convention had become out of date and the Montreal convention is a significant step forward in consumer protection. For example, it greatly increases the financial liability of airlines in the event of accidents to passengers. The UK is ready to ratify the new convention along with our partners in the European Community. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the UK is not in a position to make unilateral changes on matters such as those. Were any further amendments to be proposed, they would have to be considered and if appropriate agreed at a global level, probably through the ICAO.
Furthermore, I expect the European Commission to assert that the existence of Community law in this area creates exclusive Community competence, which would require us to act in concert with our European partners. In practice, I see little possibility of the international aviation community wishing to consider amending the convention so soon after its adoption and before it has come into force.
With regard to the case to which my hon. Friend referred, I understand that there may be an appeal. It therefore would not be appropriate for me to comment on that case. However, I can make some general points about the effects of the Warsaw convention. Mr. Justice Nelson held that the atypical reaction of any passenger to a normal and unremarkable flight does not, without any other factor, constitute an accident under article 17 of the Warsaw convention. The judge relied on a well-

269WH
established legal interpretation of the term "accident" as an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger.
Mr. John Smith: I am sorry to intervene at this late stage, but could the Minister briefly deal with my point about the unusual circumstances in which airlines have total control over the environment of passengers, but no responsibility for their health?
Mr. Jamieson: That is what I was trying to say. The way in which the courts have interpreted the Warsaw convention has prevented that particular group of passengers from claiming damages from the airline. It is a complex area of policy and law and it would be difficult to go into all the legal detail and niceties of the matter in the context of the debate today.
My hon. Friend has raised some important issues today, as he has on many other occasions. Those issues are of concern to passengers, consumers, the Government and the airlines. I welcome the debate as it gave me the opportunity to respond to some of his arguments. If there are questions to which I did not respond, I will write to him.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until 2 o'clock.

Immigration
2 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: This is the second Adjournment debate on immigration in two days. I had not realised that there would be one yesterday. I intend to amend my speech somewhat to avoid covering in detail the issues that were covered in the debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). However, I may ask some questions that follow on from it. It is also the second debate for a very long time on the subject outside legislation. That is because the House and politicians generally stay away from discussing immigration, thereby losing us respect in the eyes of the electorate. It is also a matter on which both major parties have performed spectacularly badly over the last 40 or 50 years.
Labour's British Nationality Act 1948 was the first ever to define British citizenship. It allowed 800 million Commonwealth citizens the right to reside in the United Kingdom. In June 1948, after the Empire Windrush arrived, 11 Labour Members wrote to Clement Attlee complaining about excessive immigration. In June 1950, a Cabinet committee was established with the terms of reference of finding
"ways which might be adopted to check the immigration into this country of coloured people from British colonial territories."
In February 1951, that committee reported that no restrictions were required.
But from the time of Churchill's premiership, new Commonwealth immigration rose from 3,000 in 1953 to 46,800 in 1956 and thence to 136,400 in 1961. These were largely economic immigrants, rather than asylum seekers. Andrew Roberts has written that
"Cabinet and Committee papers … point to irresolution and wishful thinking as the principal liberal Tory response to an issue which … could easily have been nipped in the bud."
In January 1954 a further committee was set up under David Maxwell-Fyfe, the then Home Secretary, which found that there was nothing to justify restrictions. It was reported afterwards that
"a reversal of traditional practice would antagonise liberal opinion".
In other words, the re was vacillation and postponement of considering the problem right through until 1961. I say that to illustrate that economic migration is a long-standing and contentious issue and that no party can be released from criticism for its handling of the matter.
The British people have never voted for mass migration and the longer we in respectable political parties ignore these issues, the more people will feel excluded from the political process and the more those who exploit race for political purposes will benefit, whether it is the race relations industry demanding ever more money from the Home Office or political parties from the British National party in Burnley to the Liberal Democrats in the early 1990s in Tower Hamlets.
We in the respectable political parties cannot afford to sweep this issue aside or bury it for fear of being called racist. I welcome the work in progress that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration reported in the Adjournment debate yesterday.

271WH
Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, I need not go over all the numbers again. To summarise, last year 100,000 people were refused asylum and 11,500 were removed from the country, which leaves a net figure of about 90,000. In 2001 the figure for non-EU immigration was about 178,000. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who is not in his place, regarded that figure as "good". Of those, 46 per cent. were spouses and families.
It is estimated that the figure for illegal immigration could be anything from 35,000 upwards. The authors of the book entitled "Asylum Statistics UK 2001" report:
"Based upon day-to-day experience of Immigration Services Union members, a very modest estimate would be that, for every person known to attempt to or succeed in entering the UK illegally, two others succeed unnoticed."
To add those figures together and project them over 10 years is not difficult. That gives a figure of 2 million migrants to this country over the next 10 years, not including those from within the European Union. The Home Office has admitted that there were 1.5 million migrants to this country in the last decade. By any measure, that is mass immigration. It means that a town larger than Luton would have to be built every year to accommodate those people alone.
Mr. Julian Brazier: In making his powerful case, does my hon. Friend understand how much he is understating the problem? The Government's own commitment to 200,000 non-EU work permits a year would make the figure of 2 million over the next 10 years on its own, over and above the figures that my hon. Friend has given.
Mr. Turner: I do indeed understand that and I thank my hon. Friend. I have been very conservative in the figures that I have used. I ask the Minister why the Government do not accept the accuracy even of my projections, which come from Migration Watch UK.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Just to help my hon. Friend, I wonder whether he is aware that Baroness Scotland, who is a Minister in another place, accepted the 2 million figure in a seminar at Oxford that was attended by my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Although the Minister in last night's debate appeared puzzled by that suggestion, she should not have been, as Baroness Anelay placed that figure, and Baroness Scotland's use and acceptance of it on the Government's behalf, on the record in another place more than a week ago.
Mr. Turner: Indeed, and so did my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield last night. The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration replied:
"We do not accept Migration Watch UK's immigration projections as accurate".—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 920.]
Then the axe came down on the debate. Will this Minister say which projections the Home Office does not accept as accurate and what figures it would substitute for them; or does it accept the figures proposed by Baroness Scotland?
272WH
I shall say a few words about asylum and then move on to the question of numbers and whether large numbers in terms of inward migration are a good thing. I shall not go into detail on asylum because that has been debated many times. In my estimation, the issue revolves more around the numbers of immigrants outside the asylum system, who are part of a Government policy, than those within it, where Government policy is well known. It is common ground that the purpose of asylum is to protect refugees and those fleeing persecution and that abuse of the asylum process harms those deserving of refuge.
The Government have gone back and forth on the matter, but in 2001 there were 110,000 asylum claims of which 100,000 were refused, so some 10 per cent. were genuine. The problem is that the Government are constantly playing catch up, not only with criminals and people traffickers, but with the countries of origin of some asylum seekers and with the courts. Some countries such as China refuse to take back failed claimants even when they have papers. With others, it is impossible to prove the country of origin, so we are left with them. Others cannot be traced. They may be classed as "returned", but they are never returned in practice.
I hope that the creation of a removals agency, whether within the immigration and nationality directorate or separate from it, will assist in the process, because the Home Secretary has said that he is fed up with dealing with situations arising from judges overturning what has been decided after debates in Parliament. That does not happen by accident. Although some judges are more liberal than others, they interpret legislation introduced by Governments. The Human Rights Act 1998 is the legislation that interferes most in the interpretation of our asylum laws. It represents a surrender of our shores and of control of our asylum process. That is why we would be right to legislate to limit those judgments.
I welcome the asylum proposals by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), which I am confident would, if implemented, be widely copied around the world. In particular, we should enter a reservation against article 3 of the European convention on human rights to give us the power to deport foreign nationals who are judged to be a risk to the public.
I also welcome the proposal that asylum seekers should be dealt with rapidly, perhaps on an offshore island some distance from the shores of the United Kingdom. The message must be that we shall deal with asylum seekers swiftly and robustly and not allow those whose applications are rejected to leak into the general population; and that we shall adopt sensible policies on benefits, housing and settlement. That is the way to reduce demand for asylum and to enable those who really need help to receive it. It would have a marked impact on fears that asylum acts as a back door into the United Kingdom.
The Government's robust words about asylum conceal their generally pro-immigration policy. There must be a motive for the policy. What is the Government's philosophy on immigration? Is it that anyone is entitled to settle in the United Kingdom, subject to restrictions, or is it that no one is entitled to settle, but that permission may be extended to certain

273WH
categories? What is the starting point, and what is the philosophy behind the restrictions or permissions that follow from it?
If, as the Government claim, high net migration brings many benefits, they should admit the numbers, sell the benefits to the public and bask in the adulation of a grateful electorate for providing such a generally beneficial improvement in our way of life. I see no evidence of that, because so far they have provided few arguments that mass migration is a good thing, but there are many arguments that the numbers put too great a burden on our infrastructure and public services, on the poorest people, and on our way of life.
2.12 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.27 pm
On resuming—
Mr. David Taylor (in the Chair): May I clarify matters by saying that the temporary sessional orders allow injury time for suspensions, so the present debate is now due to conclude at 3.45 pm?
Mr. Turner: The Government argue that we need to welcome the considerable benefits of migration. They say:
"Migrants contribute to our culture and society. They bring a range of backgrounds, cultures and faiths, which is one of the positive hallmarks of life in Britain in the 21st century."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 916.]
Other arguments in favour of high inward migration—I invite the Minister to correct me if I have missed any out—include the suggestion that mass migration corrects declining population, worsening dependency ratios, the demographic time bomb and labour shortages, and that immigrants pay more taxes and contribute to gross domestic product.
Let me provide some facts. Britain's population is not declining. The Government Actuary predicts that with zero net migration the population will grow from 59.8 million in 2000 to 60.3 million in 2020. Britain does not have a declining work force, but the fastest growing work force in Europe. With zero net immigration it will grow by 1.2 million by 2020.
Britain is not suffering a demographic time bomb, with pensioners forming an insupportable burden on the working population. Indeed, the Government Actuary predicts that the number of children and pensioners per thousand people of working age will fall from 620 in 2000 to 583 in 2020. Neither are we suffering generalised labour shortages. Immigration is no fix to the problem, as it is sometimes termed, of an ageing population. Immigrants grow old too. To maintain the youthful element of the population an immigration level of 59 million by 2050 would be required, which is absurd.
Immigration does boost the gross domestic product, but there is no evidence that it boosts the measure that matters, which is per capita GDP. In fact, immigrants usually have lower incomes and so, on average, have lower per capita GDP. Although immigrants pay more tax than they receive in benefits and consume in public services overall, it is only because immigrants from
274WH
north America, Japan and the EU pay so much more than their fair share compared with immigrants from other parts of the world, who have a net take from the tax system.
As for the argument that immigration is culturally enriching, doubling the amount of immigration does not, of course, double the amount of enrichment. When were the people of Britain last asked whether they wanted to be culturally enriched? They may go to Thai restaurants on the Isle of Wight, but do they want to see Chinese language advertisements in the Isle of Wight County Press?
Is it culturally enriching that a spokesman for Tower Hamlets council says that its schools are
"moving away from a religious theme for Easter and will probably be serving naan bread"
instead of hot cross buns? Is it culturally enriching that flags of St. George are frowned upon, that Winterval is introduced in Birmingham, and that there are bans on nativity scenes in Red Cross shops or on the mention of pigs in some schools?
Those are absurdities, I acknowledge, but they worry many people in our population and create a damaging effect of migration. Another damaging effect is that those who benefit are the employers of cheap labour for whom immigrants are a source of cheap labour, whereas the people who lose are the competitors who provide cheap labour in the labour market, including unskilled workers, especially other ethnic minorities who are already settled in Britain. The problem of cheap labour is in no way resolved by introducing immigrants into the country except in the very short term.
High levels of migration provide competition for new houses. Two million more will be required by 2021, overwhelmingly in the south-east, pushing up pressure to build on green belt areas, pushing up house prices and adding to congestion. Of course, that effect is offset by people who move out of London, but it adds to transport costs and lowers the quality of life as more people commute.
Mr. John Hayes: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the subject of labour, I wanted to make the point that the problems of cheap labour in agricultural and rural areas, and in my constituency in particular, are profound. The exploitation of immigrant populations and the exploitation of people who are not part of an organised work force—perhaps not unionised or organised in any way—is a real concern. My hon. Friend will know that action needs to be taken on that. It is not fair, it is not just and it is not appropriate.
Mr. Turner: Indeed it is not. That problem has also been mentioned by our hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds).
The Deputy Prime Minister's proposals for solving the problem of additional population pressures in the south-east actually worsen things. There is talk of moving additional homes into the transport corridors that connect with London, thereby increasing pressure on transport to and from London.
There is a huge impact on infrastructure and an increasing need for school places, including in inner London. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and

275WH
Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is in his place. That authority required at least three, and it may have been four, new secondary schools over the last three or four years to cope with, among other things, an increasing population. There is also, of course, competition for housing.
There is also an impact on public health. The House of Commons Library brief on this matter says:
"During the 1990s, numbers of HIV cases in the UK following infection in Eastern Africa rose steadily, and were approaching 500 in 2001. Cases of infection in South Eastern Africa have increased dramatically over the past few years, and numbered nearly 900 in 2001. Of the 2,400 heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK in 2001 … 70 per cent. were acquired in Africa."
They may have been by travellers, but they may have been by migrants.
Between 1998 and 2000, 11.2 cases of tuberculosis were reported per 100,000 population in England and Wales. That compares with 4.4 cases per 100,000 for people born in the UK; 73.4 cases per 100,000 for people born outside the UK and 280.5 cases per 100,000 for black African people born outside the UK. As Professor Peter Ormerod, the spokesman for the British Thoracic Society, says,
"There are a few areas of the UK that have levels of TB comparable to Third World countries."
The London borough of Brent is one of them. It has a level of 116.5 per 100,000 population, compared with China, which has a level of 113. We cannot prove that those levels are caused by high immigration, but they occur in areas in which there are large immigrant populations. I ask the Minister whether we have adequate screening to cover the massive numbers of people who are reaching our shores, so that we may ensure that high levels of infection are not imported into our country.
There is a net cost to immigration that must be measurable by the amount spent on ethnically based programmes. It is much more difficult to assess than some of the costs that I mentioned, and I do not believe that the Government have the mechanisms for identifying those costs. Only when those and other issues are honestly and openly explored can there be honest and open debate on immigration.
Among the many issues related to mass migration, the most difficult is race and what has been called the changing face of Britain. It is self-evident that when an unwelcome change takes place unnoticed and surreptitiously, it is less likely to generate hostility than one that is widely trumpeted and publicised. That appears to have been the philosophy behind all Governments', not just this Government's, handling of immigration. Sooner or later, it will be trumpeted, and when that happens I fear that we will have to deal with the consequences.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. It appears that four Back-Bench Members wish to speak. I intend to call the Liberal Democrat spokesman half an hour before the end of the debate. That leaves just under 40
276WH
minutes for the four Back-Bench Members who wish to speak. If they confine their remarks accordingly, all of them should be heard.
2.36 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I assume that I have 10 minutes. I will be obliged if someone let me know when I get to the end of those 10 minutes because I get carried away and forget where I am.
I will not even try to cover the subjects that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) raised. I intend to confine my comments to my experiences in my constituency with Asian women. I shall speak exclusively about the abuse of Asian women's human rights brought about by the abuse of immigration policy by families. The women fall into two categories. Some are UK-born; some were born at Airedale general hospital in my constituency. They are extremely attractive, intelligent, capable women who are sometimes forced, sometimes persuaded or sometimes quite willing to enter into an arranged marriage with a cousin from Pakistan or Bangladesh; usually it is Pakistan.
Usually, the girl is taken to Pakistan to be married. When she returns she is frequently a willing sponsor. Many, however, are reluctant sponsors. A woman may not wish to sponsor her husband because she may have met him only briefly at a marriage ceremony and known him just for a few days. She may decide that she has no intention of living with that man and may refuse to be a sponsor. Her family will bring a great deal of pressure to bear on her, and she will usually come to ask me for advice to see how she can get out of her very difficult situation. Between us, we can usually think of ways round the problem. We give the high commission in Islamabad information about her, the marriage and the young man she has married to stop him being given a visa. That frequently works, and the girls are let off the hook.
Unfortunately, there is another category of young women who are more vulnerable and who need much more help than those in the first category. Those girls are brought in as wives by the family-in-law. They will rarely have been forced into a marriage, as they usually see this country as a land of milk and honey. They want to come and live here. It will help them and their families to live here, so force is rarely brought to bear on them. I know of a number of cases in which the girl has been abandoned by the husband. It is the girls who are the most vulnerable victims of using marriage to facilitate entry clearance.
The husbands keep the girls here, but they have little knowledge of their rights. Many do not even know the town where they live. Many of them arrive at Manchester airport and are taken directly to the house where they are to live. They do not know much beyond the corner shop. They are, therefore, not aware of their entitlements.
Sometimes, in the most unhappy circumstances, the husband and family-in-law abandon the girl. She is then brought to me by the Keighley Domestic Violence Service in order to facilitate the granting of indefinite leave to remain. Until she gets that, she is not entitled to benefit and therefore not entitled to go into a refuge—and many such girls have children by that time.

277WH
Her husband and in-laws simply drag their feet, because they regard her as an inadequate wife. Until she gains indefinite leave to remain, she is an extremely vulnerable young woman. I have yet to fail on any of those cases. I have always managed to obtain indefinite leave to remain for those girls, so that they have access to benefits and they and their young children have access to some form of sheltered housing.
If I were not on the scene, if I were an MP who did not care, if the girls did not receive the help of the Keighley Domestic Violence Service, I am convinced that they would be deported. If they did not have indefinite leave to remain, they would be over-stayers, and their family-in-law could report them to the police. They could then be sent back to Pakistan to their family, but I would have grave doubts about their future there because they would be a great source of embarrassment to their family. They would not be welcomed.
I believe that changes are needed in order to make it more difficult for the in-laws and the husbands to put those poor girls into such a dreadful situation. As I say, I have had a measure of success, and I am grateful to the Government for having the foresight to realise that such girls need indefinite leave to remain without the support of their husbands.
Opposition Members may say that, if we still had the primary purpose rule, none of those problems would arise, but I believe that they would. I am not aware of how the primary purpose rule worked, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) could tell us how it worked—and that he would say that it was not a good idea. I have no experience of it, however, because the Government got rid of it soon after being elected. I have no way of knowing how it worked, but I do not think that it would help the present cases.
I have a few ideas that would help girls from the United Kingdom who are forced to marry and girls who are brought into the UK who are in difficult circumstances. I believe that a lower age limit would be useful for the sponsors and for those who are being sponsored. At the moment, there is no lower age limit. The only age limit is that of marriage, which is 16. It is ludicrous that girls of 16 should be brought here from Pakistan as wives, not knowing where they are going and not knowing what their futures will be. A great deal is expected of them, and they often do not live up to those expectations.
It is also ludicrous that girls as young as 15 and 16 are being taken off to Pakistan for marriage in order to facilitate entry clearance. An age limit of 21 would give those girls at least a fighting chance. That would have given the girls born in my constituency the chance to complete their A levels and go to university before real pressure was brought to bear on them by parents and extended family.
Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that, unless I am mistaken, the Danish Government recently introduced an age limit of 24 for people in that category.
Mrs. Cryer: I am well aware of that. I am a member of the Council of Europe, so I know what is going on in European countries. About 12 months ago, Denmark
278WH
introduced a lower age limit of 24 for anyone entering as a spouse from outside the EU. Of course, we cannot place restrictions on entry by EU citizens, but we could implement a lower age limit for people entering from outside the EU.
Many of the cases that I deal with would be helped enormously by the introduction of a lower age limit. If many of the girls involved were given the opportunity to make lives for themselves, it would ease the pressure put on them by their families to act as sponsors. A lower age limit would help those girls who come here as wives, because families would clearly understand that girls could not enter until they were 21, thereby easing the pressure on the girls themselves. Having reached the age of 21, a girl would be more able to look after herself and understand her rights. Both people acting as sponsors from this country and young ladies who are sponsored from the Indian sub-continent would be helped enormously by the implementation of a lower age limit.
It would also help me, as a Member of Parliament, and some of my constituents if the Home Office and Foreign Office stopped relegating us to the position of third parties. I get sick and tired of going to the Foreign Office and Home Office to tell them that a girl has been married under false pretences. It is frequently clear that the man whom she brought into this country did not want to marry her to be her spouse but simply wanted to enter the country, and that she facilitated his entry clearance. Frequently, the man leaves the girl, even before he has completed his 12 months' probation. Often, the girl comes to me and tells me a sorry story about how he has abandoned her after she has gone to all the expense of bringing him here. In many cases, the woman is a willing wife, who was happy to go along with her parents' wishes, but once he comes here and marries her, he leaves her.
Mr. David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Lady asked to be reminded when she had spoken for 10 minutes.
Mrs. Cryer: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
As I was saying, it would be helpful if the Home Office and Foreign Office allowed us to make representations without relegating us to the position of third parties. We need to tell them about the wrong-doing of some men and the unfortunate position that many young girls find themselves in when they want to have their husbands deported because they are not fulfilling their role of husband.
I have another idea, although I am unsure how it would work out. Some of the young men who come here as husbands and abandon their wives simply obtain a divorce and then, as long as they have indefinite leave to remain, call on young ladies from the Indian subcontinent to come here as their wives. That is extremely unfortunate, and it would provide more of a disincentive if they were unable to do that. It may also make them a little more determined to make their marriages a success. I suggest, therefore, that it should be necessary for someone entering this country to obtain citizenship before being allowed to act as sponsor.
I understand that the Government have certain changes in the pipeline, especially with regard to citizenship, to which I look forward. People who come

279WH
into this country as a spouse or in any other way should be welcomed. The new ideas for citizenship, which will follow the example of Canada where the family participates in a ceremony, will help to make our immigrant community more part and parcel of this country and more welcome. They should certainly be encouraged to learn English—another bee in my bonnet.
The American green card system is good. It allows into the country the people who are wanted, rather than those who are married to somebody who lives there. Ours is a poor system. It allows cases to occur such as the one in which I helped two asylum seekers to obtain entry clearance and indefinite leave to remain. They were splendid young men—Iraqi Kurds. One was a teacher, the other a doctor. They simply wanted to convert their skills so that they were usable in this country. When I compare those two people with the ones who abuse the rights of my female constituents by using them to gain entry clearance, there is no contest.
Let us welcome such young people, whether they come here as asylum seekers or as economic migrants. They add to our wealth of skills and intelligence. Let us welcome them because they are different. We should celebrate difference—there is nothing wrong in that. What is wrong is the abuse of young girls' human rights. That is what I am against. I am not arguing against people coming into this country. I am arguing against the way in which some of them get here by abusing immigration rules. We have a lot to learn from the United States' green card system. We should look at that in order to facilitate the immigration of economic migrants—people whom we could welcome and who would take up citizenship very quickly.
2.51 pm
Mr. John Horam: We owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). As he rightly said in a rigorous and brave speech, this enormously important subject is debated all too little; it should be aired far more often. I congratulate him and also the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who has pursued the issue with considerable courage over the years. I note that, despite the fact that this is a rare opportunity to discuss immigration, we have present six Conservative Members, two Labour Members and one Liberal Democrat. That gives us an idea of the relative importance attached to the issue by the parties. The Conservative party regards it as enormously important.
I am concerned, above all, about the quality of life, particularly—as the Member of Parliament for Orpington—about that in the south-east corner of our small and overcrowded island. The large population is a factor that damages the quality of life in our island. We live in one of the most overcrowded countries in the world. If we consider England on its own, it is populated more densely than Germany and four times more heavily than France, our nearest neighbour—the only comparable European countries are the Netherlands and Belgium—and it is getting worse.
United Nations estimates suggest that the population will increase from roughly 59 million now to about 66 million in 2050. A significant part of that increase
280WH
will be due to net immigration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight pointed out, if it were not for immigration, the increase would be small. Such an increase will hold dangers for the quality of life. It is, as he said, not simply a matter of asylum seekers, although that issue often claims the headlines.
In 1997, there were 41,500 people officially seeking asylum in this country. Last year, as we know, there were almost three times as many—111,000—of whom only 12,000 were recognised as genuine refugees. In addition, the number of those coming to study has increased from approximately 62,000 to 70,000 in the early 1990s to 95,000 in 2000. As the hon. Member for Keighley said, the abolition of the primary purpose rule has led to an increase in chain migration, although I shall not go into that, as she did so very ably, when she talked about some of the consequences.
In addition to asylum seekers and those studying, there has been a deliberate policy of encouraging economic migrants. On average, roughly 30,000 a year came in during the latter years of the last Conservative Government. The figure was 100,000 last year, and the Government plan to increase that number to 175,000, or possibly 200,000, as a matter of deliberate policy. I assume that the Liberal Democrats support that position. I notice that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who has quite often spoken out about such matters, said recently:

"The evidence shows that this country, like many other European countries, needs"—
I emphasise "needs"—
"a net increase of immigrant workers to meet the needs of our economy." —[Official Report, 2 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 615.]
It is interesting that both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats see the need for more economic migrants as a matter of deliberate policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight cited figures from Migration Watch UK, which is the independent organisation that we can rely on for sensible statistics on migration, and which Sir Andrew Green, the former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, founded. Migration Watch UK estimates that roughly 250,000 people a year come into this country; this is net immigration. That would mean 2 million people over eight years. The Government's official figure is 2 million over 10 years. There is a difference, but both figures are very large. I emphasise that two thirds of those people usually come to the south-east corner of England. That is part of the problem. My hon. Friend compared the number of net immigrants a year to a large town the size of Luton. I represent Orpington, which is one third of the London borough of Bromley, which contains about 300,000 people. We are talking about 250,000 people a year coming into this country, which is almost two and a half constituencies—nearly the total size of Bromley.
That trend inevitably affects public services: it strains the health service and education; it adds to congestion on the roads; it adds to overcrowding in trains and in tubes; and it increases road building and house building. The Deputy Prime Minister's forward look at house building is to a considerable extent driven, especially in south-east England, by more immigration, as well as

281WH
some movement from the north of Britain. There are also huge costs to the taxpayer, as well as social stress—although I shall leave aside the issue of terrorism.
Simon Hughes: It will be interesting if the hon. Gentleman has one or two more statistics to add. What percentage of the public service workers in Bromley, including those in the health service, are immigrants? What proportion of the public sector workers in London are immigrants? Many people reckon that more people are needed in public services, yet many jobs get done only because immigrants are doing them.
Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point that I want to consider—because the economic arguments are interesting—but certainly not in the way that he suggests. The situation has been caused partly by what I call traditional Labour incompetence. U-turns, policy changes and failures of policy have been legion. Only yesterday, the Home Secretary had to face another reversal when the law courts rejected his latest idea. The law courts were quite correct: it is shameful that the Government wanted to deny food and accommodation to people who have been allowed into the country, yet that appeared to be their policy.
In addition to incompetence, however, the Government have a deliberate policy of encouraging mass immigration, and that is the real difficulty when we consider the next decade and our quality of life. My hon. Friend spoke on the matter, so I shall not go into it at length, but I want to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
It is true that the effect of more immigrants is to increase the size of the economy, but it does not increase the per capita income of the country's inhabitants. Yes, there are shortages, as the hon. Gentleman said, but not 200,000. The 30,000 coming in when the Conservatives were in office were adequate to cope with the shortage of nurses, teachers and doctors. It lies ill in the mouth of the Government to adduce such an argument, because they have had six years to deal with such shortages.
The economic arguments are not well made, but even if they were, looking at things in a sustainable way and balancing economic, social and environmental considerations, we should be paying more attention to environmental, quality of life factors, even if it is at the cost of pure economic growth or market-led success. I favour a more balanced approach than hitherto. It is significant that the person who has written most about immigration is Mr. Anthony Browne, the environment correspondent of The Times. Our approach should be to consider the environment and quality of life issues.
The argument for economic immigration advanced and supported by Labour and the Liberal Democrats is immoral. In so far as economic immigrants are skilled and qualified, we are draining their countries of origin of their skills. For example, 50 per cent. of Jamaicans and 30 per cent. of Nigerians who have a degree come to western Europe. How can one build a country when it loses its best and most intelligent people in that way? I am staggered that Liberal Democrats and Labour want to pursue this policy, which is damaging to third world countries, although I agree that if my approach is adopted it should be accompanied by a generous trade and aid policy to build up those countries.
282WH
Importing skilled people to deal with skill shortages is neither moral nor economic, and importing unskilled people is similarly immoral, because it lowers the living standards of low-paid people in this country. For the Labour party to be making such a point, when it should be concerned, as we are, about the wages and conditions of less-skilled people, is amazing.
The suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary make total sense. He is saying that we should agree a number with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—he said 20,000 as opposed to the present 12,000—who are genuine refugees and should be allowed in. But the current 91,000 with bogus credentials should not be allowed in, thus reducing the overall numbers. Equally, I would be concerned about the number of economic migrants. Our policy is the right solution: it is moral and humane, and above all concerns itself with the quality of life in these small, overcrowded islands.
3.3 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this brief debate.
This country has always welcomed those genuinely fleeing persecution but the numbers speak for themselves. In the 1980s, the numbers coming into this country were about 4,000 a year, but they were rising. In 1995 there was a bilateral agreement with France whereby those coming into this country could be returned to France within 24 hours, which was very effective. The numbers were rising, and three things have happened since then. The first was the attitude of the incoming Labour Government, which, by the abolition of the primary purpose rule, allowing in unmarried partners and adoptive children, relaxing the rules for employment in the UK, allowing in short-term foreign workers, and allowing graduates to switch from studies to an application for residence on a permanent basis in the UK, gave a green light to those who wished to come to this country.
The numbers, as I said, speak for themselves. In 2000, about 80,000 people sought to come to the UK, of which 78 per cent. were refused. In 2001, about the same number applied. In 2002, 110,000, including dependants, applied, of whom 10,000 were given permission to remain, 13,000 were returned to their place of origin and the remainder were either given exceptional leave to remain or simply stayed here.
It was not, of course, the Labour Government's policy alone that caused the massive growth in the number of people seeking to come to the UK. The second factor was that, in September 1997, the Government signed the Dublin convention, which was European Union-wide, and which superseded the bilateral agreement. The Dublin convention does not work and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) pointed out, we should take constitutional steps to change it, and to return to some form of bilateral agreement.
The third aspect was that the Human Rights Act 1998 has taken the issue of immigration and political asylum out of the hands of the UK and Parliament.

283WH
We do, therefore, have the problem of a large number of people seeking to enter the UK. The Prime Minister said, in relation to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, that
"the problem with the asylum system is being sorted out by the measures that the Government have taken."—[Official Report, 19 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 974.]
The Prime Minister has been proved wrong in that area. The Home Secretary was more accurate when he said at the Labour party conference in 2001:
"The asylum system doesn't work. It is a mess from beginning to end."
We in the Conservative party feel that we have found a way ahead on the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has just indicated, the shadow Home Secretary suggested that a quota system of perhaps 20,000 should be agreed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Those individuals should be scrutinised outside the UK, so that we get away from the unacceptable situation in which 100,000 people a year come in and are either turned away or disappear into the community. We believe that the present system is wrong and does not work, but that at the moment we have to work with it.
That brings me to the Government's proposals to create accommodation centres for some 3,000 people on a trial basis throughout the UK. The Government have examined some eight sites for the accommodation centres. They rejected six, and chose Newton and Bicester as locations for which they intend to apply for planning permission, each for an accommodation unit of approximately 750 people.
The Government have also announced that they propose to consider the Daedalus site in Lee-on-the-Solent, in my constituency, as a location for an accommodation centre. I ask colleagues to consider what the Government said about that. On 5 February, on a confidential basis between the Home Office and Gosport borough council, the Government said that they proposed the Daedalus site for accommodating 500 families and single young men. On 11 February, they had changed their plans, and proposed the site for accommodating 400 single men, but with open access—there would be an open gate, and the men could come and go as they wished. By 10 March, the Government had changed their mind again, saying that the location might be used for 400 single men, with a secure unit for those who had been told that they would be refused admission to the UK. Some of the men would be in the centre on a free basis and some would be held in a detention area.
The Government's stated objective is to provide a
"centre for single asylum seekers in an urban area."
I note and regret the absence today of the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration—she is being substituted for by the Under-Secretary. When the Minister spoke to me on the telephone on 11 February, she said that 500 people—which was the target then—would be
"less than 1 per cent. of the population of Gosport."
She gave the impression that that was not much to worry about. However, Lee-on-the-Solent is not Gosport but a completely separate area. It is in the administrative
284WH
area of the borough of Gosport, but is a residential area in which some 6,000 people live. It has few facilities; there are certainly none for young men now that the Navy facilities are no longer available. It would be absolutely wrong to accommodate 400 young men in Lee-on-the-Solent—a quiet residential area with a significant number of retired people. That leads me to the point about consultation.
In a letter to me dated 11 February, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration stated:
"We will continue to liaise closely with the local planning authority should we decide to submit an application for planning approval. We will also agree the timing and format of public consultation with them."
In the case of Newton, I understand that the Minister's public consultation was with 40 chosen people—it was not a public meeting—in a room for an hour. I am told that she grudgingly allowed the meeting to run on for an hour and twenty minutes, during which the county council, the local authority, all the local residents' interest groups and action groups all had to make their representations. She then swept away in her motor car.
We want genuine consultation in Lee-on-the Solent. I want the Minister to come to Lee-on-the-Solent and walk up and down the high street to meet the people and to realise that the entire population is hostile to the idea. I have had well over 1,000 letters, only six of which say that we should be considerate to asylum seekers. Of course we should be. That is the first thing that I said today. We have always been considerate to genuine asylum seekers, but the individuals who are likely to be in the accommodation centre are statistically unlikely to be genuine political asylum seekers.
Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Viggers: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way. His opportunity to speak is coming; I have only a moment or two left.
We must have genuine consultation. The Government have decided to proceed with planning permission in Newton and Bicester. They have stated that
"the Government is committed as a matter of policy to developing accommodation centres… at… Bicester… and… Newton."
So once the Government have decided to proceed with planning applications, it becomes a matter of Government policy to succeed.
I do not know how the Government can say on one hand that they are conducting genuine consultation, and on the other that they are committed to developing accommodation centres as a matter of policy and that the Deputy Prime Minister will take the final decision on planning permission on a quasi-judicial basis. That matter needs to be discussed further.
Several questions arise. Is it planned that the procedure at Daedalus will be a genuine trial? I have heard that the Home Office proposes to buy the land at Daedalus if it proceeds with its application for planning permission. Buying the land does not sound like a trial to me. Although it is intended that the claims and applications will be heard within six weeks, which can be extended to six, or possibly nine, months, I must draw the Under-Secretary's attention to two cases in my

285WH
constituency that came to my notice last week. One man, whom I shall call Mr. A, has made 14 separate legal applications. He has made five applications for judicial review, including an application to the Court of Appeal. He came here as a visitor with a month's leave in June 1984, and he is still here. Another individual came here in 1994 with six months' leave to enter as a visitor. He has made a very large number of applications and is still here. That seems to show that these individuals will not be here for a mere six weeks.
How will the accommodation centres fit into the scheme of things in view of the Court of Appeal ruling yesterday, which said that individuals must be eligible for support, whether or not they have made immediate application for political asylum on arriving in this country? That is the point of accommodation centres: to provide those individuals with sustenance and support in lieu of money.
In conclusion, the Refugee Council said:
"we remain fundamentally opposed to large, out-of-town centres for asylum seekers. Such centres not only go against common sense but also ignore the problems of isolation and institutionalisation found in such centres elsewhere in Europe."
Lee-on-the-Solent is not a suitable place for such an accommodation centre, and I urge the Minister to consider the issues that I have raised and that the Daedalus action group is so effectively pursing.
3.14 pm
Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for securing this debate. It is a bizarre paradox that we have had two debates on the same subject in two days, as he rightly said, and I apologise for the fact that I could not be at last night's debate. In case he has not spotted it, I draw to his attention the fact that there was also a debate in the House of Lords on 7 March on a report from the Committee chaired by Baroness Harris of Richmond, although that was specifically about illegal immigration.
Our time is limited, and we cannot begin to have the debate properly, let alone conclude it, so I shall be selective. First, however, I want to note my regret that since our last Home Office debate, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has felt unable to stay in the Government. I have spoken to him privately, but I want to thank him publicly for his regular courtesy and friendliness across party lines. I also want to record my thanks for and recognition of the work of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who resigned from the Conservative Front Bench because of the war in Iraq. Both Members took the same general position as me and were unable to support the Government last night.
I shall deal with the core points raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I share his view that it would be helpful to have both clear statistics and a clearer expression of Government policy. I am not afraid of this debate, which I welcome. It should take place in every country, and it is a debate that we need to have now more than ever before.
286WH
I say one thing to the hon. Gentleman in passing. He said that he was not aware that the British people had been asked for their views. I am not aware that the people in all the countries to which we went over hundreds of years around the world when we had a British empire were asked for their views on whether they wanted us as immigrants to take their wealth. We normally imposed ourselves, took their money and came away, so we must be careful not to be hypocritical in judging that it is right for us to go abroad and do well by other people but riot acceptable for other people to have the same aspiration to come to a wealthy country such as ours. We must have a balanced view about that.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view that we should legislate to exclude the courts from judicial review of the Executive. They provide an important independent safeguard. I do not agree that we should come out of the European convention on human rights and re-enter only with a reservation. As he well knows, the convention, coupled with the refugee convention, means that people may not only be refused asylum if they have been in breach of international law, but lose their right to asylum if they are a threat to public security when in Britain. We have plenty of protection, and it worries me greatly that both the Conservative party and some voices in the Government have started to talk about undermining the two great institutions of the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, the latter of which we introduced to domestic law only four years ago.
In that context, it would be nonsense to have a quota for asylum seekers. However influential the Prime Minister may think that he is, we cannot determine how may people seek asylum in any country around the world. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the book that I wrote last year, which Ministers have read. In it, I recommended that instead of trying to shirk the burdens, we share them across Europe. When people come to Europe, we should try to share responsibility throughout the European Union in a fair and equitable way. This is not about human pass the parcel, but about sharing responsibility, and I hope that he remembers that the number of asylum seekers coming to western Europe has gone down by half in the past 10 years. Britain has taken a relatively high share recently, which is why a burden-sharing system that evens out the peaks and troughs would be welcome.
The hon. Gentleman used to work in education in Southwark. I am not sure that the new Southwark secondary schools were principally the result of net migration, let alone net foreign migration. Some of them are new schools to replace old schools, as opposed to new schools for migrants. Many of them were needed because the London Docklands Development Corporation, under the Conservative Government, developed the borough and put in more houses.
Mr. Horam: Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman's previous remarks that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to a quota on asylum seekers?
Simon Hughes: We are absolutely opposed. It is wars and the rumours of wars that force people to seek asylum and move around the world. It is quite improper and unrealistic to think that one can limit the number of people who make an application. It is difficult enough to

287WH
get here, but if they do they should be allowed to put their case. In law, if they have a good case we should accept them. That is why I have proposed sharing responsibility, so we can distribute the numbers equitably according to a proper formula across Europe as a whole. I hope to persuade the Minister that that is the sensible approach.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) made some important points. I support a citizenship recognition process. One point that needs to be considered is whether sponsorship should be more restricted so that it is by established citizens rather than people who have just arrived. I share her frustration that occasionally the Home Office does not recognise MPs' proper information.
In relation to the points made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), my judgment is that, on all the evidence available, we need immigrants to fill certain places in the work force. We need to have the debate about how many. That is why Government policy needs to be clarified. We never get any answers when we try to ask that question. It is partly to do with the changing demography. I put to him one of the points that is hugely relevant. How many people doing the key public sector jobs, without whom we would be unable to run our health services and public transport, have come from migrant communities?
Mr. Horam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hughes: I will not give way again, as I have limited time left.
I share the hon. Gentleman's view, however, that it would be wrong to go around the world and pick up talented people, when we have other people whom we could train. My experience of talking to Governments abroad is that the best system is for us to offer training so that people can return more skilled. Similarly, people from Britain could usefully go to be trained in other places and come back better skilled.
I must tell the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that I support asylum accommodation centres of 250 people. If that were the number proposed in Lee-on-the-Solent, I believe that there would be no objection. It is far fewer single males than when the Navy was there. I believe that there is some hidden racism in his constituency. I shall visit his constituency—I shall let him know when. I will meet the people and talk to the local authority. I understand the issue, but I will not tolerate racism parading as something else. I hope that we can have an honest dialogue. Accommodation centres have to go somewhere. In my view, they should be for about 250 people and no bigger.
Mr. Viggers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman did not give way. I have two minutes left. I will willingly talk to him outside the Chamber.
Has the Minister yet been able to form a view on whether the Government will have a common border force as recommended by the Home Affairs Committee
288WH
and implicitly by the Lord Carlile of Berriew report on terrorism? That would give us much better control of our ports of entry. Rather than have three split agencies—the police, the immigration service and Customs and Excise—that seems a better way of managing our immigration. Whatever the policy, we must ensure that we know who is coming in. Secondly, can we have today or soon good projections of need and numbers?
Thirdly, I saw the reply that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration gave last night. It seems that technologically we can quite easily put in place methods for checking who leaves. We ought to reinstate that. That seems an important thing that we could usefully do.
Fourthly, I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington that there is a need to ensure that migration is spread more evenly across the UK. All the figures show that, whereas about 25 per cent. of the London population are migrants, in most parts of the country it is between 0 and 5 per cent. It is important that there is fair sharing.
All the evidence from the Home Office and elsewhere shows that the migrant population coming to the UK is net financially beneficial. Home Office research and much other research shows that. Unless people can disprove that, we must be very wary of suggesting that migration is not a benefit. It has been a benefit throughout history and is a benefit now, although of course there is a question as to the right numbers. We should also beware of organisations such as Migration Watch UK: its figures have not been independently verified. If we have a debate, we must have it on honest facts and figures.
3.25 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: If the information coming to me is accurate, I fear that my remarks may be interrupted midway by a Division in the main Chamber. Nevertheless, I shall start by echoing the tributes paid by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). I share entirely the hon. Gentleman's view. Both will be missed by their respective Front Benches—I know that my hon. Friend will be—and we wish them well. We understand entirely the decisions that they reached.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for initiating the debate. As he said, we consider this very important subject too rarely. We have had an opportunity to consider it briefly—in a half-hour debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—in the main Chamber, and for slightly longer this afternoon. However, I hope that these will not be the only two occasions on which we consider this subject.
Given the manifest confusion over the Government's own numbers and policy, I hope that the Minister will give a firm undertaking that there will be soon be a full debate in the main Chamber in Government time, specifically so that we can hear from the Home Secretary whether he endorses the estimate of immigration given by Baroness Scotland at a seminar in Oxford. When that

289WH
point was put in the main Chamber last night, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration declined to answer it. She suggested in other phraseology that she did not accept Baroness Scotland's figure, but she did not give her own.
I pay tribute to all my hon. Friends who have spoken—they have done so with passion—and to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I have followed closely the work that she has done in her constituency and her various remarks on these very important issues in the House and the media, for two reasons. First, I think that she is a superb constituency Member of Parliament who does the work that we would all hope to do in our constituencies. Secondly—I am not sure whether she knows this—I lived in Keighley in the late 1980s, so I am very much aware of the problems and issues there with which she has been wrestling.
Both Government and Opposition Members should congratulate the hon. Lady, and I am sure that they do, on saying things that have been unpalatable for some of her colleagues about the need for citizenship tests and examinations and for people coming to this country to have their fluency in the English language assessed. She has referred to those matters in the media and has sometimes provoked what I can only describe as knee-jerk and hysterical reactions from some of her colleagues who have not understood the detail of the difficulties with which she has had to wrestle.
It just so happens—if I may introduce one personal note—that when I was growing up in the town of Bedford in the midlands in the 1960s and 1970s, it had the highest proportion of people who had not been born here of all towns in the UK. Most were refugees, not from the subcontinent, but from eastern Europe. Others had come here shortly after the second world war from Italy or had stayed on having been prisoners of war in this country. Many of the people with whom I was at school were second generation refugees—they were the sons of refugee families from eastern Europe or the sons of Italian parents.
Those families quickly made the effort to integrate into the UK population and learn the language. A lot of housing was occupied by people from eastern Europe and Italy, and as those people moved up in the world and succeeded in business, that housing became available to a growing population from the West Indies, the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent. A Bedford tradition of welcoming people from all around the world—in particular, a clergyman called Rev. Nadkarni led the community effort—was thus maintained. From my earliest years I have therefore had an interest in and some experience of the issues with which the hon. Member for Keighley has to wrestle.
The hon. Lady talked about some of the particular problems that policy decisions have caused her. I echo what she said, because I, too, have had difficulties in getting the Home Office and the Foreign Office to listen to hon. Members.
3.30 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
4 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Hawkins: I shall try to cover a number of issues quickly. I was just coming to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, who opened the debate. He gave a valuable historical perspective at the outset of his remarks. We in the mainstream parties need to be conscious of what my hon. Friend said about ignoring the issue at our peril, because if we do not talk about it seriously, extremist parties will gain ground, as they will be the only people who are prepared to talk about it.
If any members of the mainstream parties, whether Front Benchers or Back Benchers, start accusing each other of "playing the race card", as it is called, and demean the level of serious debate in Parliament between the main parties, it will help the extremist parties. I earnestly hope that when we debate the issue seriously, whether in this Chamber or in the main Chamber, that will cease. There has been too much of it in recent times—some of it, I must say, coming from the Home Secretary, which I deeply regret and deplore, particularly as he accused my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, of playing the race card. My right hon. Friend does not have, and never has had, a racist bone in his body.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight talked about the important work done by Migration Watch UK, and about the answers to the arguments in favour of mass immigration. I know that he is also interested in the work of Anthony Browne, the environmental editor who has recently written a book on the subject. It is important that all of us who talk about these serious issues pay close attention to what important organisations such as Migration Watch UK have to say. I disagree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who cast doubt on Migration Watch UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight rightly asked the Government what their philosophy was. We certainly did not discover what that philosophy was from the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration in the Adjournment debate late last night in the Chamber. Nor did we discover the answer to my hon. Friend's other question, which was about the starting point. As he said, the Government have not provided any proper evidence or figures. He rightly talked about the strain put on health and education facilities by mass immigration.
I have already referred to the valuable contribution of the hon. Member for Keighley, and I shall add something in support of her views on the need for citizenship tests. In my constituency there is a charity called the Ockenden Venture. Some of those whom it supports have had to apply for British citizenship, and the Ockenden Venture has organised citizenship celebrations. I was asked to preside over one of them, and another involved the former governor of the Falkland Islands, Sir Rex Hunt. They were moving ceremonies, because the Ockenden Venture looks after people with mental handicaps, many of whom came from Vietnam. That was an example of how citizenship ceremonies can be important and valuable. That is important to remember.

291WH
The hon. Lady—rightly, in my view—talked about raising to 21 the age limit for those who are invited to this country as spouses. As she said, perhaps it would be even better to raise the age to 24, as the Danes have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) rightly said that the debate was important, and that he agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight about how the figures would operate. He also paid tribute to Migration Watch UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) talked about the problems with the Government's plans for Lee-on-the-Solent. I agree with everything he said; as he knows, his campaign has the complete support of our Front Benchers. He drew attention to the Refugee Council, pointing out that any centres for asylum seekers should be in urban areas. As a result of their election victories the Government represent just about every major urban area in the country, so it is extraordinary that the three proposed sites are all in Conservative constituencies: those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). That seems to us a very strange coincidence—or perhaps not a coincidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport was challenged by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to say whether there would be any opposition in Lee-on-the-Solent if the centre were for only 250 people. I suspect that there would still be opposition, as there would be in most small communities—and for good reason.
4.5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing the debate. This is an important issue. However, I am baffled by his characterisation of the Government, and, indeed, by the suggestion by most of his hon. Friends, that we are somehow trying to conceal the debate or run away from it; far from it. As a Government, we have been more open, more transparent, given more opportunities for parliamentary discussion of the subject, and dealt with it more comprehensively than any Government whom I can remember. I am bemused by the idea that the Home Secretary—or the previous Home Secretary—would run away from an argument. That does not square with my experience of either of those two gentlemen.
I want to answer the many detailed questions that have been asked by all the hon. Members who have spoken today, but because of the relatively short time left, I fear that I will not be able deal with all of them. I will write to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and other hon. Members who have raised questions, and send copies of those letters to everyone who has attended the debate. I hope that that is acceptable.
Before I address the substance of the debate, may I say something to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who regretted the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration is not here today? It may help him in his state of anguish about that
292WH
if I tell him that she is currently engaged elsewhere in the House, dealing with legislation on the subject that we are discussing. I hope that that will go some way towards mitigating his regret that I am here instead of her. I shall do my best to tackle the various questions.
I was struck by the way in which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight combined a philosophical and a historical approach with a practical approach. If I may, I will replicate that and deal with the matter by first giving a brief history of the subject. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the history of immigration, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) also went into that a little. We are an island nation. That is what makes us in many ways exceptional, not only geographically, but in giving shape to our values and our institutions. We are an outward-looking nation, and a trading nation. We are formed by our position in the world. As a result of that, as a people, we have also been formed by successive waves of migration over many hundreds of years. Huguenots, Jews, Irish, Asians and people from the Caribbean have all come here. It is our contention—my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) rightly said so—that we have been enriched immeasurably by that. As a nation, we are indistinguishable from those waves of migration.
The fact that such issues have been contentious in modern times is also not new. We have only to go back to the early 20th century and consider some of the street demonstrations that took place, and the intense public anxiety that led to the passage of the Aliens Act before the first world war. All that is not new. Many of the questions that have been raised by hon. Members today are not new questions, either. If we read the debates of the late 19th and early 20th century about these very issues, we will often see that many of the same phrases were used. I believe that as a nation, we have dealt very successfully with the issues that have arisen out of the waves of migration, and I have no reason to doubt that we will continue to do so. It is important to put that point on the record.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight rightly said that the issue is politically live. We all recognise that. For all the historical background that I have just sketched out, we have to recognise that our debate takes place against a different and often very challenging global context. People move around much more than they ever did. We live in an era of cheap air travel. People are much more conscious of the rest of the world. We are dealing with all the phenomena associated with globalisation of the world economy. Inevitably, that leads to far greater flows of people, not only to and from this country, but throughout the world. If we think about any area in the world, we realise that it is experiencing the phenomena that we have been discussing today. As a Government, we must respond to that.
We have had much discussion about the Government's philosophy—or the alleged lack of it—so I wish to set out the background to our approach. Last year we set out in our White Paper, "Secure Borders, Safe Haven", our comprehensive approach and the plan of action for immigration, nationality, asylum and the challenges that face the United Kingdom. I deliberately mentioned nationality and asylum because they are interconnected issues and we are tackling them holistically and coherently.

293WH
Our objectives are clear. We are developing our policy fundamentally to create supportive, safe, cohesive communities, and to manage flows of immigration through legitimate entry routes. We are developing managed migration policies to attract the people whom we need to compete and prosper in the global economy in a manner consistent with our international commitment to eliminate world poverty and our domestic commitment to achieve employment opportunities for all. Many practical details are associated with those broad policy objectives; I shall answer the questions that have been asked in a moment.
We are developing a more coherent and effective approach to dealing with abuse of the system. That lies at the heart of many of the worries that have been raised by hon. Members. We recognise that the system—honourable and legitimate as it is—is abused. It is being abused increasingly by organised crime, and we must tackle that problem. We recognise that there is a growing problem and are taking effective measures to deal with it. We will crack down on all those who undermine and abuse our systems. As is fundamental to our moral and humanitarian objectives, we are developing a seamless asylum process, which is clear throughout—from induction and integration to return. Those measures, taken together, are fundamental to reforming our citizenship, asylum and immigrations systems and to presenting a rational approach to the new challenges that we face, given the historical phenomena over many years.
I shall now deal more specifically with immigration. The key element of the overall package is about managing migration to the United Kingdom. It has to be balanced and coherent with other commitments and social policies. It must fulfil two ends: the needs of the UK economy in an increasingly global market, but also our commitment to international development targets and our responsibility to people in developing countries. The White Paper outlined our plans to bring that about.
Harnessing the vitality, skills and energy of migrants can stimulate productivity, economic growth and job creation. I hope that there is a consensus between all
294WH
hon. Members about that. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight is shaking his head, but all the evidence shows that it is true. We have heard the Home Office figures that show that the net contribution of migrants to this country is £2.5 billion a year—although I acknowledge that that is accounted for disproportionately by the contribution of certain groups of migrants to this country.
I also ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that the value of people to the community in which they live should not be measured by the size of their income alone. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has made valuable points about the contribution of people who have come to this country recently to maintain and sustain our public services, not only in his constituency or the constituency of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), about which the exchange took place, but in all constituencies. That is certainly true in my constituency. I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to think about that when shaking his head when I refer to the contribution that migration can make to the economy and to society in this country.
In addition to developing the skills of our existing population, in the fast-changing economic environment associated with globalisation, specific bottlenecks arise. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight made a specific point about generalised labour shortages. I carefully picked up on the adjective "generalised", because he did not deal with the point that bottlenecks often arise. That is a phenomenon that will be associated with economic management for the rest of our lifetimes. We saw it at the end of the last century in relation to ICT skills. That is not the case now, but it was then. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that if we are to have a competitive, fully productive economy, we need to find ways of managing such skills bottlenecks. Indigenous training programmes are often invaluable, but they always take time to take root. We saw that in relation to the health service. The effect of our investment—
Mr. David Taylor (in the Chair)Mr. David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. We now come to the next debate.

Miss Jo Martinson
4.15 pm
Mr. David Amess: There can be nothing worse than to lose a child. It is a nightmare that we all dread, but for the Martinson family, that nightmare has turned into reality. The newspaper headlines at the time read, "Gifted Joanna died after road smash". The story said:
"Gifted university student Joanna Martinson was killed after a horror smash when her jeep ploughed into a tree and a wall, an inquest has decided."
However, that does not really tell one anything about the nightmare that the family has experienced. I know that the Minister will do everything that she possibly can to ensure that the issues that I raise this afternoon are considered properly. For Jo's parents Dawn and Chris, her sister Lucy, her brother Guy and her boyfriend Adam, the experience has been traumatic. Nothing that I say could bring Jo back, but I hope that I can give the family some comfort in the knowledge that the mother of Parliaments takes the loss of a loved one very seriously.
On 7 November 2001, at approximately 1.15, Jo was driving a Suzuki car along Hamlet Court road, which happens to be near where I live. It is not easy to drive quickly through that area, which is close to traffic lights and usually quite congested. Police have confirmed that the Suzuki was well maintained, had no mechanical defect and was travelling at 25 mph at the most.
Jo held a full driving licence and was insured to drive, and the car had a valid MOT certificate. Jo and her boyfriend, Adam Seomore, were both wearing seat belts. She was fit, in good health and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Adam confirmed that there was no harsh acceleration, no high engine revs and no sharp braking. He was looking out of the nearside passenger window when he became aware that the car had swerved sideways and was sliding towards a tree. Jo was gripping the steering wheel with both hands. Adam did not see what caused Jo to swerve, but recalls clearly that she was not distracted by anything in the car, such as a radio, conversation or a telephone. She was a scrupulously careful driver.
There were seven witnesses other than professionals. Adam, for the obvious reason that he was concussed, did not see what happened. Two witnesses arrived after the crash. Two of the witnesses implicate a large white DAF van, and its driver in particular, in the sequence of events that caused Jo's death, and two make no mention of the van's presence at all, yet there is no question but that the van was there. As police officers and a traffic warden at the scene of the crash observed, it was parked prominently, in a most dangerous manner, with a fraudulent vehicle excise duty disc.
A fixed penalty parking ticket was issued at 2.17 pm, and subsequently it was learned that the van's owner, a Mr. X, was a provisional driving licence holder with a medical defect—he had one eye—about which he had not notified the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. He had no insurance and no MOT certificate. Furthermore, his van was found to have serious and dangerous defects and was subsequently prohibited by the police. No explanation has been offered for Jo's sudden swerve to the left other than by the two witnesses
296WH
implicating the van and the driver. The police clearly regarded that to be valid, as they arrested Mr. X on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and failing to stop and report an accident. The coroner took a similar view when, on 11 April, having heard the first of the two witnesses giving evidence, he adjourned the inquest to refer the matter back to the Crown Prosecution Service.
The evidence of witness C is that he was walking along Hamlet Court road at the time of the crash when he saw a tatty and dented van reverse from a side road into Hamlet Court road and towards Jo. Witness C says that the driver was reversing with the door open, leaning out to look behind him, because the wing mirror was smashed. He saw the van continue to reverse briskly as Jo approached. He estimated her speed to be at the most 25 mph. C then heard Jo's tyres skid, and watched the car spin in the road before sliding towards a tree and wall. It was November and the weather was inclement. The tree impacted into the driver's door by approximately 40 cm. C describes the van driver showing panic and concern and driving the van back into the side road. He says that he would be able to recognise the van driver again.
Sadly, from the outset, the CPS regarded C as a potentially unreliable witness. He conceded that he had bad nerves and had had a breakdown some years ago. It is fair to say that some of the detail of his evidence is confused—for instance, the time of the accident and how far he was from the impact. However, the substance of his evidence at the inquest was consistent, credible and sufficient enough for the coroner to regard it as reason to adjourn.
There is another witness, witness H, who is known to witness C. He approached the accident scene shortly after the crash and spoke to witness C, who was, by that time, extremely distressed and told him what he had seen. Witness H then approached the van driver and spoke to him. He recognised the driver, having bought items from his second-hand shops and having seen him driving the van on previous occasions.
The van driver told witness H that he had been reversing into Hamlet Court road—he actually told him that—when he heard Jo crash behind him. He acknowledged to witness H that he had driven his van back into Windsor road, then gone to look at Jo in the wreckage. Witness H described him as agitated and anxious to move his van away. We are told that Mr. X has since denied driving the van that day.
On the basis of that evidence, the Martinson family were advised that there were sufficient grounds for a prosecution of Mr. X, at least on a charge of careless driving. Having initially decided not to prosecute, the CPS reviewed the file on three occasions, once at the request of a senior police officer, then at the request of the Martinsons' solicitor and again on the direction of the coroner. The only consequence has been a court appearance by Mr. X on 14 May last year on a charge relating to defective brakes.
When the Martinson family phoned the criminal justice unit on 15 May to question whether Mr. X might still be charged with having had no insurance, no licence and the other matters, they were told that the matter was academic, as the time limit of six months had lapsed by one week. That was obviously cruel news to give to the

297WH
family. Members of the family, setting aside their feelings, are appalled by what they perceive to be the perversity and apparent negligence in that case. Characteristically for an agency that attracts national criticism—sometimes unfairly, but on occasion with merit—although the Crown Prosecution Service granted the Martinsons' solicitors access to the papers necessary to pursue a private prosecution, it was not prepared to test its budget or its competence in the pursuit of justice.
I shall speak about the role of the CPS in private prosecutions. The family were going to launch a private prosecution, but decided not to do so. I believe that the guiding factor was that the family found everything most traumatic, especially having to appear in court. The case has been going on for 18 months. The family were also concerned about the quality of the evidence that the witnesses might give.
The family do not seek a scapegoat, but they want justice to be seen to be done. I plead with the Minister. I know how difficult it must be, and I know that she will do everything that she can.
4.26 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.40 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Amess: I say again that I realise how difficult this is for the Minister and her office, but the family would desperately like to see whether there is some way of reopening the case. They feel very strongly that Mr. X was, directly or indirectly, responsible for the accident. They do not want anyone to be used as a scapegoat, but they very much want justice for Jo.
I have correspondence from the Director of Public Prosecutions. As it is not marked "private and confidential", I want to share with hon. Members the tone of the correspondence that resulted from my raising several issues about the investigation of Jo's death. In a letter, Mr. Calvert-Smith says:
"Essex Police laid informations before Southend Magistrates' Court, alleging that"
Mr. X
"had used his vehicle on 7 November 2001 without insurance, without having a test certificate and with defective brakes. The police then sent a file of evidence relating to these motoring offences to the Crown Prosecution Service for review.
A senior crown prosecutor reviewed the evidence and discovered that the information alleging no insurance had been laid out of time. The offence was alleged to have been committed on 7 November 2001 but the police did not lay the information until 24 May 2002, seventeen days after the six month limitation had expired."
It is not me saying that, but the Director of Public Prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service. The letter continues:
"Furthermore, it could not be argued that the police were unaware of the insurance matter during the currency of the limitation period and therefore this offence could not proceed further."
298WH
The letter goes on:
"I can confirm that the Crown Prosecution Service has never been asked to advise on any other offences relating to"
Mr. X
"and, as I understand it, Essex Police have not commenced proceedings regarding the other offences mentioned by Mrs. Martinson in her letter of 21 August 2002."
The sole issue to be addressed is Mr. X's admission to criminal offences, as recorded by the police in witness statements relating to charges that were never brought. By his own admission, Mr. X had driven for many years without a full driving licence. That is incredible. He had driven, despite a serious visual defect. Originally, he told the police that he had notified the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, but later accepted that he had lied. He had driven and owned a van displaying a fraudulent tax disc, and he had driven and owned an unroadworthy vehicle, described by police as "heavily used", "generally uncared for", with a braking system that was "seriously defective" and a recorded mileage that
"may not be an accurate reflection … given its age and condition."
A prohibition order was issued because the braking defect made its use on any road dangerous by any definition.
What really upset the Martinson family beyond belief was that they heard Mr. X joke about Jo's death in the witness box, and heard from a witness that he walked away from the wreckage of Jo's car. By any measure the family have been restrained. Mr. Calvert-Smith attempts to shift responsibility to the police for failing to prosecute. His letter states that
"in advising the Police there was insufficient evidence to support any charges relating to Miss Martinson's death, the reviewing crown prosecutor did advise that the other Road Traffic Act offences relating to Mr. X's vehicle were made out … It remains the responsibility of the Police to start proceedings."
Somewhere between the two agencies must rest responsibility for an incompetence that has protracted and exacerbated the difficult time for the Martinson family.
What happened to Mr. X? He was given a fine of £60. If I were found guilty of not paying the congestion charge by midnight, I would be fined £80. It is outrageous that Mr. X, who has flouted the law, has been allowed to get away with it.
In conclusion, I can do nothing better than refer to the obituary in the university publication, which said:
"Jo will be remembered as being academically able, enthusiastic about her degree and extremely supportive of her fellow students. Most importantly, however, those who knew her will recall her vivacious personality, her warm and welcoming smile and how much they enjoyed being in her company."
I owe it to Jo, as her Member of Parliament, to see that justice is done and I know that the Minister will do her very best to ensure that it is.
4.47 pm
The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): This debate is about the Crown Prosecution Service's action on the death of Jo Martinson. When reviewing the file of case papers, I came across the comments of Oxford Brookes university when it reported her tragic death to her fellow students. Jo Martinson's life was cut short and her friends, her brother and sister and her parents

299WH
have suffered the greatest loss possible. Her parents, through their Member of Parliament, want answers to their questions. They want to know how she came to be killed at such a tragically young age and they want justice. They are entitled to nothing less. There will be no easy answers, but I have agreed to work with their Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). We are determined to do what we can to ensure that no stone is left unturned in this case.
As Solicitor-General, I assist the Attorney-General in superintending the Crown Prosecution Service. It is operationally independent, but through me, it is accountable to the House. I shall set out my understanding of the situation through my examination of the file and through talking to the relevant CPS department. I will make it my business to ensure that any points that remain unanswered or in dispute between us at the end of this short debate will be pursued until they are fully, properly and consistently answered.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have no interest in passing matters between the CPS or the police. We must ensure that what happened is understood fully and, as far as we can, sort everything out. At the very least we need answers, and we will endeavour to give them.
To assist that process, I want to convey, through the hon. Member for Southend, West, the offer of the chief Crown prosecutor John Bell to meet Mr. and Mrs. Martinson to discuss any further matters that arise in the case. I know that Mrs. Martinson is a magistrate, so she fully understands how the criminal justice system should operate.
From what the hon. Gentleman said, much of what happened appears to be commonly acknowledged. As I understand it, at around 1.15 pm on 7 November 2001 at Windsor road, Westcliff-on-Sea, Jo Martinson was driving a Suzuki car that swerved and struck a wall and a tree. She was severely injured and died in hospital a week later. There was one passenger in the Suzuki, sitting in the front passenger seat, whose name was Adam Seomore. He gave a detailed statement to the police but was unable to explain why Jo Martinson swerved into the wall; as the hon. Member for Southend, West explained, he was concussed. It is commonly agreed that the vehicle was not travelling fast, but was below the 30 mph speed limit. Although the road surface was wet because it had rained recently, visibility was good.
Initially, perplexingly, no other vehicle appeared to be involved in the accident. When police arrived at the scene, they were not made aware of any other vehicle. Statements were taken from six 'witnesses, and those who saw the accident, with one exception, described the vehicle swerving into the wall but made no mention of another vehicle being involved. However, a witness, Mr. C, approached the police eight days later to implicate a white Leyland van that he had seen backing out from a driveway, which might have caused Jo Martinson's Suzuki to swerve.
A second witness, Mr. H, had not seen the accident, but had come upon the aftermath. He was a friend and neighbour of Mr. C and approached the police after speaking to Mr. C about the accident. Mr. H claimed to have spoken to the van driver after the accident and said
300WH
that he thought that, as the hon. Gentleman said, he appeared anxious. He said that the van driver had admitted to backing out at the time of the accident. The van driver had parked and left the vehicle unattended, which is how the police found it when they arrived.
Coincidentally, a parking attendant who arrived at the scene of the accident after the collision happened noted that the van had been left parked on double yellow lines, with the rear end overhanging the give way line. She issued a fixed penalty notice. In addition, a police officer pointed out to her that the vehicle had a fraudulent tax disc, but as the hon. Gentleman said, no action appears to have been taken. I have made inquiries and I am not entirely satisfied about why that happened. It should have been followed up and prosecuted, but it was not. I know that that sounds unsatisfactory, but I am not yet able to say why. However, I undertake to do so, either in a parliamentary reply or in a letter to the hon. Gentleman.
As a result of the later statements by Mr. C and Mr. H, the police were aware that the van was suspected to have been involved in the accident. On 21 November the police stopped Mr. X when he was driving in the van, which he owned, and took it away for examination. On 26 November, Mr. X was arrested and taken to Southend police station for questioning. In interview, he denied any involvement in the accident. He was interviewed again on 11 January 2002 and maintained his original story, although as the hon. Gentleman said, he admitted other offences relating to the deplorable condition of the vehicle and its lack of documentation.
The police and the CPS lawyer, Keith Rylands—an experienced senior Crown prosecutor—had an initial case conference mainly to focus on whether it would be possible to mount a charge of causing death by dangerous or careless driving. The police file for advice was then submitted in writing to the CPS on 13 February and considered again by Keith Rylands. He weighed up all the evidence and reviewed the papers, and concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to make a conviction relating to the accident more likely than not. The evidence from the two later witnesses, Mr. C and Mr. H, was weighed up, but its inconsistencies and the lack of other witnesses weakened it. For example, Mr. C claimed in his first statement to have been 4 ft from the accident, but later admitted to being approximately 50 yds away. His statement contained other inconsistencies. I am not suggesting that he did not see what he said he saw, but such factors would undermine the strength of his evidence, and it would be less likely to withstand a cross-examination by the defence and thus lead to a conviction.
Mr. C also suffered from a nervous disorder, and he had come forward with evidence late in the day after seeing a news report of the accident. Again, I am not suggesting that he did not see what he said he saw. However, so far as proof in court is concerned, those factors tend to weaken and undermine evidence. Keith Rylands advised the police that there was insufficient evidence to charge the driver with causing death by either dangerous or careless driving. However, on the other motoring offences, the police were advised that there was sufficient evidence to charge on the following counts: driving without a full licence, driving with a disability—Mr. X only had one eye, which had not been notified—driving with defective brakes, and driving with no insurance and no MOT. The police were advised

301WH
that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute on those counts, and the file was returned to them so that they could put papers to the inquest and instigate prosecutions for those five offences.
On 28 March 2002 the police laid information at Southend magistrates court for only two offences: driving a motor vehicle with a defective brake on 7 November, the day of the accident; and using a motor vehicle with no MOT. It appears that the police did not lay information on the other three offences at that stage. The CPS did not notice the error. The information on the two offences was laid in time, as the first court date was 23 April 2002. On 24 May 2002 further information was laid by the police, and lack of insurance was added to the list of offences. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and the case was scheduled for trial on 28 August 2002. On that date, the CPS offered no evidence on the allegations of defective brakes and no insurance. The defendant pleaded guilty to having no MOT and, as the hon. Gentleman said, was fined £60 with £35 costs.

In April 2002, following the start of the inquest, the coroner adjourned its conclusion to consult with the head of the CPS trials unit, Chris McCann, who was asked to review the papers with a view to starting prosecutions for offences relating to the accident. He reviewed the evidence, and came to the same conclusion as Keith Rylands. Chris McCann was conscious of the nearing statutory time limit, and, after consultation with the defence solicitor, who was to take counsel's advice, he arranged for Essex police staff to lay information for
302WH
careless driving and for failing to stop and report, so that the case could be kept open in case the family wanted to take out a private prosecution.
I shall now address the CPS's decisions. It is plain that there was insufficient evidence to enable the CPS to mount a prosecution for causing death by dangerous or careless driving that would comply with the code for Crown prosecutors. However, the other allegations should have been pursued, and they were not.
I have set out some of the facts, but I have not had time to set out my analysis, and where we go from here. I only have time to say that today is the starting point of the discussion, and of the unpicking of the case. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southend, West for giving us the opportunity to start off the process of discussion. I have more to say, and I shall seek to conclude the matter by finding some way of bringing it back to the Chamber—[Interruption.]
Mr. David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. I apologise to those observing the debate for its fragmented nature. The debate is now concluded, and the sitting suspended for a Division.
5 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House
6.2 pm
On resuming—
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Six o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Marine Accidents
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the number of(a) accidents and (b) fatalities in UK waters in each year since 1997 involving fisheries vessels, where vessel size to power ratio was identified as a contributory factor. [103695]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch of the Department for Transport record details of accidents and fatalities involving UK registered vessels or occurring in UK 12 mile territorial waters. They have searched their records and been unable to identify any incidents involving fisheries vessels from 1997 to date where vessel size to power ratio was a contributory factor.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on reflective strips for builders' skips. [103940]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Standards Institution has circulated a first draft of a proposed standard for high performance retroreflective materials, and is currently preparing a revised version taking account of the technical comments received. The Department intends, once the British Standard has been published, to consult on the proposal that local authorities should be able to specify the use of these products on builders' skips, as an alternative to using lamps in conjunction with lower grade retroreflective markings.

  Road User Charging
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the illustrative(a) constant motoring costs and additional investment, (b) wider take up of local charging powers and (c) limited inter-urban charging scenarios, and the three illustrative scenarios combined, from the original 10-year plan have not been repeated using the new transport model; and how much he estimates it would cost the Department in (i) monetary terms and (ii) departmental manpower to carry them out. [103055]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are several reasons why the scenarios have not been replicated. Our new National Transport Model is different to the one used for the original 10-year plan in a number of ways—including its multi-modal approach, more recent data and revised assumptions. Given this, attempting to replicate the scenarios would not provide us with useful information on the comparative performance of the two models. In addition, the information and assumptions on which the 756W
  original scenarios were based has now been superseded, so the scenarios themselves would not be directly comparable.

  The limited information which would be gleaned means that replicating the identical scenarios has not been a priority for the modelling team. To date, and for the foreseeable future, run time is dedicated to priority work being undertaken as part of the review and roll forward of the 10-year plan. I have not estimated what the monetary costs would be, but due to the complexity of the model runs, the scenarios could take up to two weeks to produce, at the expense of urgent work required for the review and roll forward of the Plan.

  Air Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures the Safety Regulation Group takes to ensure that(a) flight crew and (b) air traffic controllers are not subject to harassment after submitting safety related reports (i) within and (ii) outside the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme; [103571]

  (2) what measures the Safety Regulation Group has taken to ensure that (a) flight crew and (b) air traffic controllers are able to comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998;[103574]

  (3) how many times the Safety Regulation Group has revoked an air traffic controller's licence having received (a) an Overload Report and (b) a mandatory occurrence report;[103573]

  (4) what steps the Safety Regulation Group takes to verify the (a) accuracy and (b) objectivity of the air traffic controller (i) Overload Report and (ii) mandatory occurrence reports.[103570]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is included in the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 1999 in respect of"compliance with the requirements of civil aviation legislation, including aviation safety".

  The CAA's Secretary and Legal Adviser is the first point of contact for those who wish to make a qualifying disclosure to CAA. Contact details are given in the Department of Trade and Industry Guide to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

  Any reports received by the CAA under the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme are distributed only to a Department with a direct interest in the content of that report and the anonymity of the author will be retained throughout. Any individual who considers that they have been harassed as a result of submitting a report to the CAA may make a complaint to the CAA.

  Reports submitted outside the Mandatory Occurrence Scheme include those submitted by flight crew to the UK Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (CHIRP). This programme provides a confidential reporting system for all individuals employed in or associated with the industries. In addition, the CAA meets annually with representatives of the British Airline Pilots Association where pilots' concerns may be raised in complete

  757W
  confidentiality and anonymity. And Air Traffic Controllers may, if they wish, file confidential reports directly to SRG.

  The CAA is aware that an Overload or Mandatory Occurrence Report submitted by a controller may be written subjectively. Therefore, CAA requires that each Air Traffic Control Unit has a process in place which undertakes local investigations of such reports to verify their accuracy and objectivity.

  The CAA has not revoked any Air Traffic Controller's Licence as a result of receiving an Overload or Mandatory Occurrence Report.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many unannounced inspections the Safety Regulation Group has carried out on civil air traffic control units within the last 30 months. [103572]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Safety Regulation Group has not carried out any unannounced inspections of civil air traffic control units within the last 30 months.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether all the senior managers at the Safety Regulation Group have attained relevant qualifications required for their civil role and responsibilities; [103685]

  (2) how many senior managers have been employed by the Safety Regulation Group over the last 30 months who had (a) a solely civil aviation background and (b) a solely military aviation background;[103686]

  (3) how many senior managers are employed by the Safety Regulation Group; and how many of these senior managers have (a) a civil aviation background and (b) a military aviation background. [103684]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Safety Regulation Group employs 43 senior managers. Of these:28 have a civil aviation background
  7 have a military aviation background
  8 have both a civil and a military background

  No senior managers have been recruited to the Safety Regulation Group from external sources over the last 30 months.

  All senior managers at the Safety Regulation Group are selected and appointed on the basis of objective judgment as to their suitability for the role, with regard to qualifications, experience, knowledge and competence.

  Internal Telephone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the most recent internal phone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [101784]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's internal directory is held electronically and is continuously updated. The last paper copy produced was in November 2001 for the then DTLR. A copy will not therefore be placed in the Library.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 1159W, on London Underground, what the period is of the contract with the London Underground PPP Infrastructure Consortia; what the break and reassessment periods are; and if he will make a statement. [103447]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The full period in the contracts is 30 years. Periodic reviews are provided for at 7.5 year intervals.

  National Transport Model
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officials work on the National Transport Model. [103057]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Nine officials work directly on the development, maintenance and application of the National Transport Model.

  Railways
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers travelled on the Great Western line in 2002 between(a) London Paddington and Reading and (b) Reading and London Paddington (i) each weekday on average, (ii) each weekend on average and (iii) on each day that the Reading Festival took place. [103356]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Strategic Rail Authority publishes annual passenger journey figures for each Train Operating Company in its Annual Report, a copy of which is placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the 10 locations of greatest railway congestion, indicating how many trains pass per hour in each 1-hour period between 6 am and 10 pm on a typical weekday(a) in total and (b) per available track. [102256]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2003]: There is no one standard method of measuring congestion.

  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is developing Route Utilisation Strategies whose purpose is to identify the best overall use of the network. The SRA's Capacity Utilisation statement of principles, published in December 2002, has been placed in the House Libraries.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority regarding the announcement of the draft specifications for the new arrangements for the Thames Trains franchise due to commence in April and May 2004; and if he will make a statement; [103297]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority on plans for Great Western timetable restructuring in 2004; and if he will make a statement. [103324]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend has regular contact with the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) on the full range of its activities. The SRA is considering the process for the replacement of the current Thames
  759W
  Trains franchise, which expires on 31 March 2004. The Great Western timetable is likely to change following the Great Western Main Line route utilisation strategy, which is expected to be implemented in 2004.

  Rosyth
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lorry movements he expects to divert from Hull to Rosyth as a result of his Department's grant assistance for new RO-RO facilities in Rosyth. [103839]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's grant award to Forth Ports plc, Rosyth was predicated on the substantial environmental benefits which will arise through the saving of over 400,000 long distance lorry movements between Scotland and English ports over the next 10 years. It is estimated that around 40 per cent. of these movements would otherwise have passed through the port of Hull.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans Ministers in the Department have to(a) visit Scotland on official business, (b) announce public appointments and (c) make ministerial announcements in April. [103662]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Departmental business during the campaign period preceding elections to the Scottish Parliament will be conducted in accordance with the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments in respect of elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  Traffic Estimates
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the estimates of traffic in 2000 will not be agreed until May 2003. [103056]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A re-assessment of the traffic figures, which began in 2002, has been a major exercise, but is now nearing completion. It is expected that the revised estimates for all years will be ready for the next Road Traffic Statistics Quarterly Bulletin due to be published on Thursday 8 May. This will be in accordance with the new National Statistics protocol on Release Practices, which requires the publication of revised estimates as soon as these are available.

TREASURY

  Armed Forces (Gratuities)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tax the gratuity which a member of the Armed Forces receives upon leaving. [103180]

  Ruth Kelly
  The current pensions simplification consultation document proposes that tax free lump sums paid from pensions schemes will only be available after the minimum age of 55. The Government is considering separately the position of members of the Armed Forces pension scheme in light of this proposal.

  Child/Working Families Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish take-up figures for the child tax credit and the working families tax credit. [102990]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Statistics on the Child and Working Tax Credit will be published quarterly, beginning in August 2003. The first set of statistics will cover awards at early July 2003.

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps has he taken to increase the level of UK private investment in less developed countries. [103522]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor has supported a range of initiatives to encourage foreign direct investment in developing countries. These include supporting the creation of new Investment Advisory Councils in developing countries which bring together public and private sectors together build a consensus, in the light of regional conditions, on how to secure higher levels of investment.

  Additionally, the UK government provides funding through DfID for a joint project between the Commonwealth Business Council (CBC) and New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). The project aims to encourage the private sector to work with the NEPAD programme of action, and stimulate the increased domestic and foreign investment required for NEPAD to succeed.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) business groups and (b) development organisations regarding private investment in developing countries. [103523]

  John Healey
  The Government views the creation of favourable business environments in developing countries as an important driver for growth and development. To this end Ministers regularly meet with a wide range of academics, business leaders and NGOs. Both the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development recently addressed a government sponsored international conference on 'Financing Sustainable Development, Poverty Reduction and the Private Sector'.

  Fuel Tax
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the impact on road traffic levels he estimates would be from(a) a decrease in petrol duty by 5p a litre, (b) a decrease in petrol duty by 10p a litre, (c) an increase in petrol duty by 5p a litre, (d) an increase in petrol duty by 10p a litre, (e) an increase in petrol duty by 20p a litre and (f) an increase in petrol duty by 50p a litre; and what he estimates the change to revenues to the Treasury would be from (a) to (f). [102476]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are unable to estimate the impact on traffic of a change in the duty on petrol alone. The estimated effect of a 5p per litre reduction in duty on both petrol and diesel together, based on provisional traffic data for 2002, is to increase traffic levels by around 5.1 billion

  761W
  vehicle kilometres. Similarly, the estimated effect of increasing fuel duties by 5p per litre is to reduce traffic levels by 5.1 billion vehicle kilometres. Successive changes of 5p per litre in fuel duties are estimated to have effects of broadly the same magnitude, although the larger the change the greater the likely error in predicting its effects.

  The impacts on revenue can be estimated from Table 6 in "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs", November 2002, published by HM Treasury.

  Iraq
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the funding available to the Department for International Development to prepare for the humanitarian consequences of war with Iraq; and what contingency planning he has made to increase the funding available to the Department for International Development for this purpose. [100263]

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional funding has been given to the Department for International Development to help it prepare for and respond to the humanitarian consequences of war in Iraq. [102044]

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what funding has been earmarked for humanitarian relief in(a) Iraq and (b) its neighbours. [103943]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have not yet made any firm estimates of the likely costs of humanitarian and reconstruction needs in Iraq if there was to be military action. The UK Government believe that the role of the United Nations and other multilateral institutions will be vital in addressing the reconstruction in Iraq if military action is taken. The UK Government will be fully involved in any humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, alongside our international partners.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his statement of 3 February,Official Report, column 5WS, on the landfill tax credit scheme, to what extent the transitional funding is adequate to cover all eligible claims for transitional funding in England; and who will decide, and how, which of competing eligible claims receives funding. [103506]

  John Healey
  As my Statement of 3 February Official Report, column 7WS, made clear, the transitional funding is being administered by Entrust, the regulating body of the landfill tax credit scheme, on behalf of DEFRA. An Independent Assessment Panel decides whether projects in England meet the criteria set out in the Statement. All projects which meet the eligibility criteria will receive transition funding.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list internal flights made by Ministers in his Department in 2002, including in each case the(a) cost, (b) departure location and (c) destination; and of these how many were (i) first class, (ii) business class and (iii) economy class. [103581]
  762W
  Ruth Kelly
  As to flights taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 27 February 2003,Official Report, column 694W. With regard to flights taken by other Treasury Ministers, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 22 January 2003, Official Report, column 334W.

  Royal Households
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ask the Inland Revenue to investigate the remuneration policies of the Royal households. [103824]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax affairs of the Royal Households and their employees are confidential in the same way as those of other taxpayers. Exemption 15 (Statutory and other restrictions) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Ministers in the Department have to(a) visit Scotland on official business, (b) announce public appointments and (c) make ministerial announcements in April. [103651]

  Ruth Kelly
  Departmental business during the campaign period preceding elections to the Scottish Parliament will be conducted in accordance with the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments in respect of elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  Tax Incentives
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned into the effect tax incentives may have on the level of UK private investment in less developed countries. [103521]

  John Healey
  The UK Government believes that the establishment of a good overall investment climate, rather than the use of tax incentives, is the most effective way of encouraging more productive private investment in developing countries. Through the Department for International Development the UK funds two research centres which conduct research into issues relating to private investment in developing countries.

  Tobacco/Drink VAT Revenues
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the VAT revenue received from(a) advertising cigarettes, tobacco and related products and (b) advertising wine, spirits, beer and related products in each year since 1996. [103425]

  John Healey
  Any VAT relating to the advertising of tobacco or alcohol products will have been recoverable by VAT-registered purchasers of the advertising services. Therefore, such advertising has had no direct effect on VAT revenues.

  The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 bans most advertising of tobacco products.

CABINET OFFICE

  Policy Unit
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many civil servants employed by(a) the Strategy Unit, (b) the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, (c) the Office of the e-Envoy, (d) the Office of Public Services Reform and (e) the Prime Minister's Policy Unit have been (i) members of the Labour Party, (ii) employees of the Labour Party and (iii) employees of Labour hon. Members. [103065]

  Mr. Alexander
  The rules relating to the involvement of civil servants in political activities are set out in the "Civil Service Management Code". There is no requirement for Departments to collect information on civil servants' membership of political parties. Information relating to civil servants' previous employment is not maintained centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent assessment he has made of the efficiency of the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement. [101277]

  Mr. Alexander
  Government Departments are already subject to a range of similar external checks and disciplines:performance of departments in delivering their PSA targets is assessed regularly by the Cabinet Committee on public services (PSX);
  departments are required to publish details of performance twice a year through departmental reports and the new autumn performance reports. These are subject to scrutiny through Parliament's departmental select committees;
  overall performance of departments is assessed every two years through the Spending Reviews when new budgets and targets are set;
  the Head of the Home Civil Service will be holding regular meetings with heads of departments to discuss progress on 'departmental change programmes'. The personal performance of individual Permanent Secretaries is also reviewed annually through the Permanent Secretaries' Remuneration Committee;
  the National Audit Office undertakes a programme of detailed value for money studies covering the activities of each departments, and Accounting Officers may be called before the Public Accounts Committee;
  the management of individual projects is subject to detailed scrutiny through the 'gateway' process led by the Office of Government Commerce.

  Taken together these processes provide substantial pressure for the improvement of performance, and a high degree of accountability and transparency.

  Forward Strategy Unit
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people work in the Forward Strategy Unit; what issues it is looking at; what its running costs were in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; and if he will make a statement.[99884]

  Mr. Alexander
  The (Prime Minister's) Forward Strategy Unit is no longer in operation. In June 2002 it was merged with the Performance and Innovation Unit 764W
  (PIU) and the Policy Studies Directorate of the Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS), to create the Strategy Unit (SU).

  The staffing of the Strategy Unit varies according to its work programme. It is currently around 90 full-time equivalents.

  The Strategy Unit carries out long-term strategic reviews and policy analysis, which can take several forms:
  long-term strategic reviews of major areas oft policy;
  studies of cross-cutting policy issues;
  strategic audit; and
  working with departments to promote strategic thinking and improve policy making across Whitehall.

  The unit is also leading on work to maintain the quality and standards of government social research.

  Current Strategy Unit projects include:
  Ethnic minorities and the labour market;
  Alcohol harm reduction;
  Costs and benefits of GM crops;
  Local Government in the future;
  London;
  Drugs (jointly with the Home Office).

  There are more details of the unit's past and present work on its website: www.strategy.gov.uk

  (a)The estimated out-turn for the Strategy Unit's running costs in 2002–03 is £6,966,000.

  (b) Budgets have yet to be set for 2003–04.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Dolphins
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent estimates the Government has made of dolphin bycatch deaths in UK fishing waters; [102789]

  (2)what measures the Government plans to introduce to reduce incidents of dolphin bycatch by UK fishing boats. [102761]

  Mr. Morley
  The Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) on behalf of Defra has carried out sample surveys of fisheries implicated in the bycatch of dolphins. These surveys have indicated a problem in the offshore bass fishery where the pair trawling teams monitored caught dolphins at a rate of approximately one every three hauls. However, bycatch information from other member states whose vessels operate in this fishery and elsewhere in UK waters is not available so it is not possible to produce reliable estimates of dolphin bycatch deaths in UK waters.

  This reinforces the need for action on the part of all member states involved in the fisheries concerned and the Commission if measures to reduce dolphin deaths are to be effective. This is why we raised the need for urgent action at the January Council of Ministers' meeting. I have also raised this issue with Commissioner Fischler on a number of occasions both in writing and in personal contacts. I have also recently written to the Commission to press for urgent action to widen

  765W
  observer coverage off the South West coast where a number of other Member States' vessels fish. I was pleased that the Commission included a commitment to take action in this area in papers produced as part of the recent reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I am looking for positive action on this in response to our recent approaches.

  In the meantime, Defra has also committed some £140,000 for trials into the use of exclusion devices developed by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU)to reduce the bycatch of cetaceans in the offshore bass fishery. I will also, along with the devolved administrations, shortly be issuing a consultation document outlining a UK bycatch response strategy. This will set out the extent of our knowledge of bycatch in UK waters and make proposals for action to address the bycatch problem. The document will be laid in the Library of the House and I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a personal copy.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional financial assistance will be given to those who previously fur farmed. [103820]

  Number and percentage of households in fuel poverty

  1996

  1998

  2001

  Number of households (thousands)

  Percentage

  Number of households (thousands)

  Percentage

  Number of households (thousands)

  Percentage

  North East

  331

  31.0

  280

  26.3

  106

  10.2

  England

  4,287

  21.8

  3,278

  16.4

  1,761

  8.6

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to require auditors to owe a duty of care to individuals who are shareholders at the date of the audit report. [100916]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Company Law Review carefully considered the arguments for and against extending by statute those to whom a company's auditors owe a duty of care. The Final Report concluded, in the light of responses to consultation, that the case for statutory extension had not been made out and that negligence law in this field was best left to the normal process of case law. The Government is considering this recommendation as part of the wider issue of auditor liability.

  Computer Contracts (Iraq)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export regulations apply to the computer and computer maintenance contracts between ICL/Fujitsu and the Government of Iraq; when approvals have been given; and if she will make a statement. [102870]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of computers, and goods required for their maintenance, from the UK to Iraq is controlled under the provisions of the Export of Goods (Control) (Iraq and Kuwait Sanctions)Order 1990. In
  766W
  Mr. Morley
  Licensed fur farm businesses, which closed down after the Fur Farming (Prohibition)Act 2000 received Royal Assent, will be able to claim compensation. A compensation scheme will be drawn up under the Act to provide payment for certain categories of loss.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households in(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK were in fuel poverty on (i) 1 February 1997 and (ii) 1 February 2003. [103557]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government published "The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy Pt Annual Progress Report" on March 2003. This showed that the number of households in fuel poverty in the UK is estimated to have fallen from about 5½ million in 1996 to about 3 million in 2001.

  The available information on fuel poverty in the is set out as follows. Figures are not available centrally for the Jarrow constituency or for South Tyneside.

  addition, a UK company might require an individual licence to communicate, before entering into a contract to supply goods or services to Iraq, if the business they wished to discuss was not covered by the provisions of the Open General Licence to Communicate dated 19 November 1998.

  The details of export licence applications from particular companies are normally commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under exemptions 13 and 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, details of export licence applications from ICL, to export computer systems to Iraq prior to the imposition of UN sanctions in August 1990, were published in the 1996 Report of the Inquiry into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq and Related Prosecutions. A copy of the 1996 Scott Report is available from the Libraries of the House.

  We have not been able to identify any export licence application from ICL or Fujitsu, to supply computers or related equipment to Iraq, since 2 May 1997.

  Correspondence
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister for e-Commerce and Competitiveness will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Wrexham of 27 November. [104003]
  767W
  Mr. Timms
  The reply was sent on 13 December 2002.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help is given to disabled people collecting benefits from post offices. [103558]

  Mr. Timms
  Compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act at any specific post office location is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. in respect of Crown offices and the individual sub-postmaster in respect of sub-post offices. I have been informed by Post Office Ltd. that sub-postmasters have been provided with packs enabling them to audit their own offices for Disability Discrimination Act compliance and that advice will be provided by POL throughout the process.

  Energy White Paper
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her Answer of 7 March 2003,Official Report, column 1290W, on the Energy White Paper, if she will place a copy of the nuclear and radiological skills study in the Library; what the URL is for the report on her Department's website; and if she will publish the (a) names and (b) affiliations of the members of the task group. [103306]

  Mr. Wilson
  Copies of the report of the nuclear and radiological skills study have been placed in the Library of the House and are also available on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/nuclear/sldlls/nsg.shtml The report was produced by a group chaired by Professor John Chesshire and made up of people from the nuclear industry, academics and officials from my Department, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Defence and the Health and Safety Executive. Full details are listed in the report.

  Fireworks
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to restrict the sale and use of very noisy fireworks; and at what decibel level the restriction will be set. [101014]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997 prohibited the supply to the general public of aerial shells, shells-in-mortar and some other large and powerful fireworks including the category 4 type.

  Fireworks meeting these Regulations must comply with BS7114. However, this standard does not set a maximum noise level.

  As part of the work associated with the Fireworks Bill currently before Parliament, we are considering how best to control the level of noise emitted by fireworks.

  Glass
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many tonnes of(a) green, (b) white and (c) brown glass were imported in each year since 1997. [103338]

  Alan Johnson
  The information is not available.
  768W
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many tonnes of(a) green, (b) white and (c) brown glass were manufactured in the UK in each year since 1997. [103337]

  Alan Johnson
  The information is not available.

  Hydropower
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the contribution of hydropower on British rivers towards electricity production. [103320]

  Mr. Wilson
  The most recent statistics for year ending December 2001 show that hydro-power in the UK has an installed capacity of about 1500 MW which could be expected to produce between 4000 and 5000 Giga Watt Hours of electricity, the actual output being dependent on rainfall.

  Source:

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2002 (Published by the Department of Trade & Industry)

  Iraq (Oil)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1)what(a) discussions she has held with and (b) representations she has received from the US Government concerning the exploitation of Iraqi oil following any conflict which leads to regime change; [102750]

  (2)what discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues concerning the exploitation of Iraqi oil following a conflict in the Middle East; [102757]

  (3)what discussions she has held with multinational oil companies concerning the exploitation of Iraqi oil following any conflict in the Middle East. [102751]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is our position that Iraqi oil is owned by the Iraqi people. Its revenues should be used for the good of the people. We make this clear in all our contacts on the subject.

  However, the current situation is not about oil, it is about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime deliberately flouting the will of the United Nations.

  Ministerial Meeting
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the meeting between the hon. Member for Leicester, East and the Minister for E-Commerce on 10 March. [103222]

  Mr. Timms
  I met the hon. Member and a delegation representing the textiles and clothing industry in Leicester to discuss issues relating to the industry. I agreed to write to the hon. Member addressing the points raised at the meeting, which I will do shortly.

  Motor Fuel
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations she has received advocating an investigation by the Competition Commission into motor fuel(a) retailing and (b) wholesaling. [103046]
  769W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In recent months, we are aware of having received one representation advocating an investigation by the competition authorities into motor fuel retailing or wholesaling.

  Nuclear Exports (India)
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there is a complete embargo on exports of replacement parts for nuclear power stations in India. [103167]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on 15 March 2002,Official Report, columns 1298–1300W.

  A licence will not be issued where there is a clear risk that the items could contribute to weapons of Mass Destruction Programme.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she plans to replace the computer licensing system at the Office of Fair Trading; and if she will make a statement. [102782]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Investment in the OFT's computer systems is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading to decide.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive Department for Health on the report from the Office of Fair Trading on the regulation of pharmacies. [103237]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: There have been a number of discussions between this Department and the Scottish Executive Department for Health and Community Care, at Ministerial and official level.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with representatives of the pharmacy profession in Scotland on the Office of Fair Trading report on the regulation of pharmacies. [103285]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: Representations have been made to the Department of Health and Community Care at the Scottish Executive. This Department has been made aware of the content of those representations and officials have attended meetings in Scotland to hear the concerns of the profession directly.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to consult the Scottish Executive on the implications of the OFT report on pharmacists. [103178]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This Department is working co-operatively with health departments in all the devolved Administrations in considering the OFT report on Pharmacy entry controls.

  Public Sector Documents
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the impact on United Kingdom GDP of implementation of the Draft Directive on the re-use and commercial exploitation of public sector documents. [101087]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: It is too early to say with any certainty what impact the implementation of the Directive will be within the UK, and no estimate has been made, but the proposal, as amended within the Council Working Group and due to be considered at the 27 March Telecoms Council, is broadly consistent with the policy adopted within the UK in 2000. That policy, the result of the Cross-cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy, has meant that most central Government information is now licensed for re-use on a marginal cost basis, which in practical terms generally means free of charge. The UK reserved the right of Trading Funds, such as Ordnance Survey and the Met Office, to charge for their documents in a way that would allow them to obtain a reasonable return on investment, and that latitude is reflected in the Directive.

  If the text is adopted, any effect on GDP would be from the easier re-use of European documents. This would depend on the extent to which UK companies and others took advantage of it. A provisional estimate carried out by Pira International for the European Commission in 2000 suggested that the annual economic benefit for the European Union as a whole would be between 28 billion Euro and 134 billion Euro.

  Security (Nuclear Power Stations)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a further statement on the incursion by protesters into the Sizewell B nuclear plant on 13 January in respect of allegations that a serious breach of security occurred. [103025]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have nothing to add to the Statement I made on 28 February 2003,Official Report, columns 56-57WS, and to the Statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Business on 14 January 2003, Official Report, columns 547–50.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what research she has undertaken to ascertain the effects of a worst case scenario terrorist attack on Sizewell A and B Power stations; [102846]

  (2)what assessment she has made of recent research into (a) the number of fatalities and (b) the other consequences that could arise as a result of terrorist attack on a nuclear power station. [102845]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government have undertaken an assessment of potential terrorist acts against all civil nuclear power stations. The results are not published on the grounds that the information would be of value to potential terrorists.

  There are well tried and tested contingency plans for dealing with the aftermath of an accident, terrorist attack or other incident affecting a nuclear power station. These have been developed over many years and

  771W
  practised regularly in a rolling programme of local site-based exercises involving the site operators and the relevant local and national agencies. The lessons of these exercises are taken forward both locally, and nationally through the DTI-chaired Nuclear Emergency Planning Liaison Group.

  Tidal Energy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the development of tidal energy lagoons off(a) the Welsh coast and (b) elsewhere in the UK. [103318]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department has received a number of representations from one organisation regarding a tidal lagoon project in the UK.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent estimate she has made of the cost of power from(a) waves, (b) tidal stream, (c) tidal barrage and (d) tidal lagoons. [103446]

  Mr. Wilson
  A number of claims have been made about the cost of power from these technologies but as they have not yet been demonstrated as proven and reliable methods of electricity generation such estimates are speculative.

  The exceptions to this are tidal barrage on which much work has been done in the past, particularly in respect of the Severn Barrage and tidal stream. A recent review of the Severn Scheme showed previous conclusions that such projects are uneconomic compared with other forms of electricity generation were unchanged.

  In 2001 a study* which re-examined the commercial prospects for tidal stream power did make some cost estimates based on a single device concept. The likely cost of energy from this device were estimated in the range 4–6 p/kWh. However these are very tentative since the concept has yet to be demonstrated.

  * The Commercial Prospects for Tidal Stream Power DTI/Pub URN 0I/1011

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the feasibility of offshore tidal power generation. [103316]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 2001 a study was commissioned which re-examined the commercial prospects for tidal stream power*. The UK is at the forefront of development of technologies which harness this potential although this form of generation has yet to be shown to be commercial.

  * The Commercial Prospects for Tidal Stream Power DTI/Pub URN 01/1011

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the potential of tidal energy lagoons to provide renewable energy in the UK. [103317]

  Mr. Wilson
  Tidal lagoons as with other forms of large scale barrage have potential to contribute to the UK's renewable energy targets. However, these schemes have a very substantial impact on the environment and in the case of lagoons their economics have yet to be demonstrated.
  772W
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the role that non-barrage tidal power electricity generation could play in achieving renewable energy targets. [103529]

  Mr. Wilson
  The recent Energy White Paper acknowledged the potential contribution that tidal power technologies could make to achieving the Government's longer term renewable energy goals. In 2001 a study was commissioned which re-examined the commercial prospects for tidal stream power*.

  *The Commercial Prospects for Tidal Stream Power DTI/Pub URN 01/1011

  Veterans' Day
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will institute an annual holiday early in November, to be called Veterans' Day, in honour of those who have given their life in defence of the country. [103192]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have no plans at present to increase the number of bank holidays.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he plans to have with member states of the European Union on the role the Union will play in future negotiations regarding Cyprus. [102375]

  Mr. MacShane
  Regrettably, it has not proven possible to secure a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus in time for a reunited island to sign the Treaty of Accession with the European Union on 16 April. As decided by the Copenhagen European Council, Cyprus will accede with the a cquis suspended in the north of the island. The Commission will, in consultation with the government of Cyprus, consider ways of promoting economic development of the northern part of Cyprus and bringing it closer to the Union. The UK and the EU remain committed tc efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement within the framework of the UN Secretary-General's proposals of 26 February. However, as Mr. Annan made clear in his concluding statement in The Hague, an opportunity like the one so recently missed is unlikely to recur for some time.

  Iraq
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1)what the source was of the material provided to UNSCOM about Iraq's attempts to obtain nuclear material in Africa; and if he will make a statement; [103861]

  (2)if he will publish the evidence provided to UNSCOM that Iraq has tried to procure nuclear material in Africa. [103862]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The material provided was principally based upon intelligence reporting. It is not Government policy to disclose information on intelligence matters.

  Israel
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will call on Israel to disarm its weapons of mass destruction in accordance with United Nations Resolution 687. [103669]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly urge Israel to resolve international concerns about its nuclear status by acceding to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state and to enter into a full-scope safeguards agreement with the IAEA. We also urge them to sign and ratify all other international treaties relating to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

  The UK has consistently supported resolutions in the United Nations calling for the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  English Heritage
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the administrative costs were of English Heritage for each Government office of the region in(a) 1999 –2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03. [103290]

  Dr. Howells
  The administrative costs of English Heritage's Regional Offices are shown in the following table.

  Region

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  East Midlands

  205,600

  236,152

  261,283

  259,300

  East of England

  337,300

  376,036

  402,077

  369,460

  London

  411,400

  382,638

  432,483

  397,140

  North East

  331,200

  294,967

  322,004

  320,960

  North West

  124,300

  147,849

  173,833

  153,720

  South East

  948,200

  871,951

  1,010,344

  1,121,180

  South West

  821,600

  574,629

  661,413

  639,980

  West Midlands

  323,100

  365,103

  355,959

  440,540

  Yorkshire

  483,200

  622,754

  670,319

  575,240

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the administrative costs were of the New Opportunities Fund for each Government office of the region in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03. [103292]

  Mr. Caborn
  The New Opportunities Fund set up its England regional team in September 2001. The administrative costs in each region were:

  £

  2001–02

  136,250

  2002–03

  79,776

  1 Part-year costs

  Sea Angling
  Mr. John Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the promotion of recreational sea angling. [104015]
  774W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Government does not have responsibility for the promotion of particular sports. The National Federation of Sea Anglers, the sport's governing body, is funded through Sport England for the promotion and development of recreational sea angling.

  The Joint Angling Governing Bodies (which includes the National Federation of Anglers), with support from Sport England, have launched their plan for the future of the angling, which includes; expanding participation; leading the angling community; improving performance and raising the profile of the sport.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the National Federation of Sea Angling. [104016]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have had no such discussions. However, officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport recently met representatives from a wide range of sea angling interests, including the National Federation of Sea Anglers, along with representatives from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  My officials also meet representatives from all the angling disciplines, including those from the National Federation of Sea Anglers each year at the Angling Summit.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to maintain a national register of sports facilities; and if she will make a statement. [103225]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has announced our intention to establish an England-wide database of sports facilities. Information on sports facilities in England is currently held by a variety of organisations and a single database will enable more strategic Government investment in those areas and facilities that are most important.

  Sport England has been working on the development of an England-wide database of sports facilities and have completed the first stage of work on the tendering process.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Careers Guidance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is Government policy to make available individual careers guidance to all students at the close of their compulsory school years. [103087]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Careers education and guidance is available through schools and the Connexions Service to all young people aged 13–19 as and when they need it. Where a young person needs individual careers guidance at the close of their compulsory school years then this is made available.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what average(a) primary and (b) secondary school class sizes were in England in each year from 1980–81 to 2003–04 (planned), (i) broken down by local education authority and (ii) in total; and if he will make a statement. [99820]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The required information is readily available for 1980, 1985, 1990 and each year from 1995 to 2002. A table giving this information has been placed in the Library.

  Co-payments
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to introduce co-payments for the public services for which he is responsible; and for which services. [102203]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department for Education and Skills has no plans to introduce further co-payment arrangements, where the recipient of education services contributes to their cost, other than those that have already been published in the recent Higher Education White Paper.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what qualifications mentors working with Connexions are required to have. [103646]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Connexions Personal Advisers are drawn from a range of professional backgrounds. To be fully qualified they must possess an NVQ level 4 or equivalent in a relevant professional discipline (e.g. careers, youth work, social work) and have attended a bespoke training programme, either Understanding Connexions or the Diploma for Connexions Personal Advisers. Training is accredited by higher education institutions approved by the Connexions Service National Unit.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many mentors are retained in each region by Connexions partnerships; and what his estimate is of how many there will be at the end of 2003. [103649]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The latest Management Information collected from Partnerships shows that at the end of December 2002 there were 6,399 Connexions Personal Advisers in post. Broken down by region, the figures are as follows:

  Region

  Personal advisers1

  South East

  608

  London

  838

  South West

  731

  East of England

  450

  West Midlands

  879

  East Midlands

  493

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  799

  North West

  1,177

  North East

  424

  1 End December 2002

  776W
  Note:

  Data excludes Norfolk and Berkshire Partnerships which started January 2003.

  Source:

  Partnership MI at end December 2002

  The funding provided in the Spending Review 2002 makes provision for this number to rise to almost 10,000 in 2004.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of mentors working with Connexions(a) have been checked by the Criminal Records Bureau and (b) are waiting for their checks to be completed. [103683]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Although Connexions Partnerships provide us with the numbers of Personal Advisers they have recruited, they are not required to provide data on the numbers who have been subject to List 99 and Criminal Records Bureau checks. To do so would serve no purpose as it is a legal requirement for employers to ensure that all Personal Advisers have been subjected to completed List 99 checks before they can come into direct contact with young people. Collecting information on the numbers checked would only serve to place an unnecessary burden on partnerships.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what rights a parent has to know(a) whether their child is being advised by a mentor from the Connexions service, (b) the name of that mentor, (c) the occasions when meetings have taken place and (d) the subjects that were discussed. [103648]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Connexions Partnerships will generally advertise the existence of the Connexions service within their locality. In addition, through the Partnership Agreement, Partnerships will work with schools, colleges and other appropriate institutions to make the availability of the Connexions Service known to parents and their sons and daughters; letting them know that it is available to all 13–19 year olds within their school or institution, via various contact points within the community or through the on-line service, Connexions Direct. Connexions Personal Advisers also strongly encourage young people to discuss any Connexions support with their parents but respect the right of the young person not to do so.

  Partnerships are not obliged to notify parents that their child is actively involved with Connexions—either in one to one sessions with a Personal Adviser or through more general group sessions. The exception to this may be if the Personal Adviser is working with a young person in a school where it has been agreed that the school's confidentiality policy is followed, which may give the parents the right to know this information.

  All information sharing policies drawn up by Connexions Partnerships must be in accordance with the Data Protection Act and other relevant legislation.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what contact mentors who have not been security checked by the Criminal Records Bureau are allowed to have with young people. [103647]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Before being allowed any direct contact with young people—supervised or otherwise—all Personal Advisers must, as a minimum, have been
  777W
  List 99 cleared (a DIES maintained list of people whose employment working with young people has been barred or restricted by the Secretary of State). Partnerships must also carry out Criminal Records Bureau checks on all Personal Advisers. However, as List 99 provides robust clearance on child protection issues, Personal Advisers cleared in this way are able to have unsupervised, direct contact with young people while the Criminal Records Bureau check is undertaken.

  The Financial Memorandum for Connexions Partnerships requires Connexions Partnerships to take all reasonable precautions to avoid employing any person convicted of a criminal offence involving an offence against the person, or an offence involving sexual behaviours, except with the prior written consent of the Secretary of State. Where the Criminal Records Bureau check reveals other such criminal convictions, it is up to the Partnership to decide if they wish to obtain this consent.

  Lower-income Families
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what definition of lower-income families is used in the White Paper on Higher Education. [103783]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak on 6 February,Official Report, column. 358W

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) schools and (b) universities he and each of his ministerial colleagues have visited in the past 12 months. [102295]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Ministers have made 152 visits to schools and 30 visits to universities on departmental business since March 2002.

  Short-listed Suppliers
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 25 February, ref 99110, how many short-listed suppliers(a) could and (b) could not meet the terms. [100051]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There were insufficient companies which met the terms and conditions of the framework exercise to offer an acceptable choice to schools.

  The decision to abandon the procurement exercise was made in accordance with all appropriate regulations.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many special schools have been operating for(a) visually and (b) hearing impaired children in each year since 1995. [102561]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following table sets out the number of special schools operating for visually impaired (VI) and hearing impaired (HI) children.
  778W

  VI

  HI

  VI/HI/MSI

  Total

  1995

  24

  43

  82

  149

  1996

  24

  43

  82

  149

  1997

  24

  43

  82

  149

  1998

  24

  43

  81

  148

  1999

  24

  43

  81

  148

  2000

  24

  43

  80

  147

  2001

  24

  43

  79

  146

  2002

  23

  42

  79

  144

  2003

  23

  42

  79

  144

  In addition to VI and HI schools the table identifies the special schools that make a combination of provision, which may also include multi-sensory impairment (MSI).

  Truancy
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the truancy rates from pupil referral units were in each academic year since 1997. [102559]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on pupil attendance at Pupil Referral Units is not collected centrally.

DEFENCE

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions since UK ratification of the Ottawa Treaty on which UK forces personnel have been involved with operations involving the use of anti-personnel mines by other countries. [102361]

  Mr. Ingram
  We do not keep records of which other nations use anti-personnel mines. The use of such weapons and compliance with the Ottawa Convention is a matter for individual nations. The United Kingdom's participation in operations with other countries is in full compliance with our obligations under the convention.

  Depleted Uranium
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in the event of military action in Iraq(a) UK and (b) US forces will use tank shells containing depleted uranium. [103670]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom Forces currently deployed to the Gulf have depleted uranium tank munitions available as part of their armoury and will use them if necessary.

  I am unable to comment on United States Forces' munitions.

  Equipment Stocks
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks his Department holds, broken down by unit, of(a) desert boots, (b) desert clothing, (c) Combat 95 clothing and (d) tents; and if he will make a statement. [102807]
  779W
  Mr. Ingram
  With regard to boots and clothing, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 January 2003,Official Record, column 640W to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).

  With regard to tents, units hold only a small quantity of tents for use as administrative and storage facilities. Information on numbers at each unit is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  European Union
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the EU is involved in peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [103864]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. The role of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is to assist the Afghan Transitional Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas so that the Authority and United Nations' personnel can operate in a secure environment. The deployment of the ISAF is authorised by the United Nations' Security Council Resolution 1444 and the European Union has no role in the Force.

  Exercise Saif Sareea
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department has taken to resolve the(a) logistical, (b) communications and (c) equipment failures identified through Exercise Saif Sareea II. [84534]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]: Exercise Saif Sareea II was a major success and demonstrated, as planned, key elements of the Joint Rapid Reaction concept. Many of the lessons identified have already been implemented including modifications to the challenger 2 Main Battle Tank to improve its performance in desert conditions and an environmental enhancement pack for the AS90 self-propelled gun. In addition, following the successful trial on Exercise Saif Sareea II Personal Role Radios have been issued to all those ground forces deployed to Kuwait who could potentially be involved in combat.

  HMS Albion and Bulwark
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost of building HMS Albion and Bulwark was; what their initial expected in-service date with the Royal Navy was; what his estimate of their actual building cost is; whether any additional cost will be met by the Government; and if he will make a statement. [102415]

  Mr. Ingram
  The maximum estimated cost to the Ministry of Defence at contract award of the Landing Platform Dock (Replacement) programme was £819 million, including the associated landing craft; the current estimated cost to the MOD is £790 million. The Prime Contractor has reported losses on the LPD(R) programme but there will be no additional costs to the MOD under the contract. It would not be appropriate to disclose an estimate of the actual cost to the Prime Contractor as the extent of their cost overrun is 780W
  commercially confidential; I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The planned in-service dates were originally March 2002 for HMS Albion and March 2003 for HMS Bulwark.

  Iraq
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British aircraft participated in recent coalition attacks on Iraqi ground positions; and if he will make a statement. [101594]

  Mr. Hoon
  British aircraft continue to respond to threats from Iraqi forces while patrolling the no fly zone.

  Military Forces Training
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries whose military forces have been provided with training in the United Kingdom since 1997. [103464]

  Mr. Ingram
  Between January 1997 and March 2003 the Ministry of Defence has provided training in the United Kingdom to members of the military forces of 134 countries. A complete list of countries that have trained in the UK follows:

  1. Abu Dhabi

  2. Albania

  3. Algeria

  4. Angola

  5. Antigua

  6. Antigua and Barbuda

  7. Argentina

  8. Armenia

  9. Australia

  10. Austria

  11. Azerbaijan

  12. Bahamas

  13. Bahrain

  14. Bangladesh

  15. Barbados

  16. Belarus

  17. Belgium

  18. Belize

  19. Bermuda

  20. Bosnia

  21. Botswana

  22. Brazil

  23. Brunei

  24. Bulgaria

  25. Canada

  26. Cayman Islands

  27. Chile

  28. China

  29. Colombia

  30. Croatia

  31. Czech Republic

  32. Denmark

  33. Ecuador

  34. Egypt

  35. El Salvador

  781W

  36. Estonia

  37. Ethiopia

  38. Fiji

  39. Finland

  40. France

  41. Gambia

  42. Georgia

  43. Germany

  44. Ghana

  45. Greece

  46. Grenada

  47. Guatemala

  48. Guyana

  49. Honduras

  50. Hong Kong

  51. Hungary

  52. Iceland

  53. India

  54. Indonesia

  55. Ireland

  56. Israel

  57. Italy

  58. Jamaica

  59. Japan

  60. Jordan

  61. Kazakhstan

  62. Kenya

  63. Kosovo

  64. Kuwait

  65. Kyrghistan

  66. Latvia

  67. Lebanon

  68. Lithuania

  69. Luxembourg

  70. Macedonia

  71. Malawi

  72. Malaysia

  73. Maldives

  74. Malta

  75. Mauritania

  76. Mauritius

  77. Mexico

  78. Moldova

  79. Morocco

  80. Mozambique

  81. Namibia

  82. Nepal

  83. Netherlands

  84. New Zealand

  85. Nicaragua

  86. Nigeria

  87. Norway

  88. Oman

  89. Pakistan

  90. Papua New Guinea

  91. Paraguay

  92. Peru

  93. Philippines

  782W

  94. Poland

  95. Portugal

  96. Qatar

  97. Romania

  98. Russia

  99. Rwanda

  100. Saudi Arabia

  101. Senegal

  102. Seychelles

  103. Sierra Leone

  104. Singapore

  105. Slovakia

  106. Slovenia

  107. South Africa

  108. South Korea

  109. Spain

  110. Sri Lanka

  111. St. Christopher and Nevis

  112. St. Lucia

  113. St. Vincent

  114. Swaziland

  115. Sweden

  116. Switzerland

  117. Syria

  118. Tanzania

  119. Thailand

  120. Tonga

  121. Trinidad and Tobago

  122. Turkey

  123. Uganda

  124. Ukraine

  125. United Arab Emirates

  126. Uruguay

  127. USA

  128. Uzbekistan

  129. Venezuela

  130. Vietnam

  131. Yemen

  132. Yugoslavia

  133. Zambia

  134. Zimbabwe

  Mines
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from what sources mines retained for training purposes as permitted under the Ottawa Treaty have been procured; and to what purposes they have been put. [101297]

  Mr. Ingram
  Mines retained for permitted purposes under the Ottawa Convention were kept from previous operational stocks and small numbers of different types have been procured from various sources. These have been declared in the United Kingdom's annual return to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with Article 7 of the Ottawa Convention.

  Retained mines have been used for training in mine detection, mine clearance and mine destruction techniques as permitted in Article 3 of the Ottawa Convention. Specific purposes include: training

  783W
  explosive and mine detection dogs; training military and civilian mine clearance personnel; making relevant training films, videos, and posters; testing and trials of mine clearance devices; and testing and trials of protective clothing and equipment.

  Weapons (Private Contractors)
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether surplus or redundant(a) small arms and (b) light weapons are (i) given and (ii) sold by the Department to private contractors. [103308]

  Mr. Ingram
  No surplus small arms or light weapons have been gifted to private contractors. No surplus small arms have been sold to private contractors in the last three years. Surplus light weapons would only be sold (via the Ministry of Defence's Disposal Services Agency) to the original equipment manufacturer in support of an export order.

WALES

  Airports
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly regarding assistance for regional airports. [102974]

  Peter Hain
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on many issues including the role of airports throughout Wales.

  Economic Development (North Wales)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly about economic development in North Wales. [102975]

  Peter Hain
  I have regular discussions with the Assembly's First Minister about economic development matters across Wales.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Francis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on widening participation in higher education, with particular reference to student funding. [102976]

  Peter Hain
  Regular ones, and with the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he held with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding tuition fees before the publication of the Government's White Paper on higher education. [102980]

  Peter Hain
  The First Minister and I have been in close contact about the future of student funding in Wales and will continue to work with the Secretary for State for Education and Skills over the coming months.

  National Health Service
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales about the state of the national health service in Wales. [102977]

  Mr. Touhig
  I regularly meet the Assembly Minister for Health to discuss health matters in Wales.

  Contaminated Land (Cynon Valley)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has discussed(a) the contaminated Phurnacite land in the Cynon Valley with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and (b) action to be taken in respect of the land. [102978]

  Peter Hain
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister. I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns regarding this land and I am pleased to tell her that the Feasibility Task Group is meeting today to consider the specifications for `treatability tests'.

  Pay Equality
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the National Assembly for Wales on the pay gap between men and women in Wales. [102979]

  Peter Hain
  Regular ones. Closing the pay gap is a priority.

  Agriculture
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the future of the agricultural industry in Wales. [102981]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the First Secretary and I meet the Assembly Agriculture Secretary and DEFRA Ministers to discuss a variety of issues, including the future of the agriculture industry in Wales.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with ministerial colleagues about the impact of the national minimum wage in Wales. [102982]

  Peter Hain
  I have frequent contact with Ministerial colleagues and around 60,000 people stood to benefit from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in Wales in April 1999 with around 80,000 people benefiting from the last major uprating in October 2001.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Regional Policy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister is leading on the revision of EU regional policy post-2006; if he will place in the Library a statement on
  785W
  the Cabinet Committee arrangements to deal with this issue; and if he will make a statement of the Government's policy. [103417]

  The Prime Minister
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry leads on EU Structural Funds. The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for policy on the English regions, as well as central oversight of devolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for matters concerning the EC budget and the European Investment Bank. All three Ministers share responsibility for the PSA target on improving the economic performance of the English Regions.

  The European Policy (EP) Committee is the Cabinet committee responsible for the issue. Details on the composition of the Committee are in the Libraries of the House and are published on the Cabinet Office website.

  The Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published a paper on 6 March entitled `A Modern Regional Policy for the United Kingdom', which launched a joint consultation on the future of EU Structural Funds.

  Iraq
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to publish amendments to his assessment in the document `Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction' presented to the House in September 2002 arising from the evidence of UNMOVIC inspectors on Iraqi(a)bases, (b)presidential palaces and (c)uranium imports. [102883]

  The Prime Minister: I have no plans to publish an amended version of the dossier presented in September 2002, the contents of which still accurately reflect our assessment of the position with regard to Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has revised his assessment of the threat posed by Iraq to the UK, following the statement on 7 March by the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency; if he will make a statement of the source for his assertion that Saddam Hussein has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa; and what action he is taking to verify intelligence documents which he has relied upon in forming policy. [103874]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the h on. Member to the debate on Iraq in the House on 18 March 2003,Official Report.

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Prime Minister how many meetings his Department has had with representatives of each of the partners represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly since 1 October 2002. [103258]

  The Prime Minister
  I and members of my office have had frequent meetings with political parties in Northern Ireland in recent months.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV/AIDS (East Asia)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department is having with the governments of(a)China, (b)Japan, (c)Indonesia, (d)Philippines, (e)Malaysia, (f)North Korea, (g)South Korea, (h)Cambodia, (i)Burma, (j)Laos and (k)Vietnam on the spread and control of HIV and AIDS; and if she will make a statement. [103111]

  Clare Short
  Without sustained action in Asia, HIV/ AIDS will have significant social and economic costs. It is estimated that over seven million people in Asia are already infected with HIV, 20 per cent. of the global total. Although HIV came later to Asia, it has made substantial inroads in a short time.

  The epidemic in Asia varies dramatically between and within countries. Cambodia and Burma have significant national epidemics. Others are seeing concentrated epidemics in the most vulnerable populations, such as injecting drug users and sex workers. While prevalence is still low even among these groups in other countries, action now will prevent the pattern seen elsewhere of low prevalence for a number of years followed by rapid increases.

  The spread of HIV/AIDS in is an issue which is a top priority for DFID in the region. Relevant targets for HIV/AIDS have been included in our Public Service Agreement.

  In the countries in which DFID has a programme, HIV/ AIDS is an issue that we continually raise in the context of policy discussions with governments about our development partnership. Our discussions cover a range of issues including priorities, targets and approaches. We have significant HIV/AIDS programmes in China, Cambodia, Burma and Vietnam. These are looking to strengthen national responses to HIV/AIDS through both targeted interventions for those groups most as risk, as well as improvements in the enabling environment for more effective action.

  DFID does not have programmes in Japan, the Phillipines, Malaysia, North Korea or South Korea. Although we do have some discussions with the governments of some of these countries in the context of global financing instruments such as the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.

  Iraq
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to address the shortcomings in preparedness for international relief in Iraq identified by the International Development Committee. [103268]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been fully engaged in recent months in trying to get the world to face the humanitarian risks of military action in Iraq, and make preparations. This work continues. We have provided £10 million to UN agencies and international NGOs to support their contingency planning. We are seconding specialist staff to the key offices which will have a key role in the coordination of any humanitarian effort
  787W
  (including UN OCHA and the UN Joint Logistics Centre, both in Cyprus; and the US's Office for Reconstruction in Humanitarian Affairs in Kuwait). And we are continuing to work towards establishing the right international mandates to enable the UN to take the lead role in relief and reconstruction, and to administer the Oil For Food Programme, in the event of conflict. I will provide a full written response to the recent report of the International Development committee in the next few days.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list internal flights made by Ministers in her Department in 2002, including in each case the(a)cost, (b)departure location and (c)destination; and of these how many were (i)first class, (ii)business class and (iii)economy class. [103586]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Chelmsford west on 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 555W and the central answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office to David Laws on 22 January 2003, Official Report, column 334W.

  Refugee Camps (Pakistan)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the conditions of refugee camps in Pakistan. [102740]

  Clare Short
  UNHCR is running over 150 camps in Pakistan, housing approximately 1.5 million Afghan refugees. The camps provide health and education facilities, as well as basic shelter, water, sanitation and daily rations.

  Conditions are basic, but generally adequate. The camps are monitored by UNHCR and we receive periodic reports. Direct access to the camps is difficult, not least because of security considerations.

  We are aware of reports of higher than normal maternal mortality rates in the camps. Conditions for women and children are monitored by UNHCR Protection Officers, who have also dealt with cases of early and forced marriages, domestic violence and other problems faced by vulnerable refugees.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many times she has visited Scotland on official duties each year since 2000; and what meetings were held on each occasion. [103614]

  Clare Short
  I visited Scotland on official duties five times in 2000 and twice in 2002. I did not visit Scotland in 2001.

  In line with exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings or their content, as some of these discussions may have taken place on a confidential basis.
  788W
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many special advisers in the Department(a)have left and (b)will be leaving to work in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections. [103615]

  Clare Short
  The rules relating to special advisers' political activities are set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Further guidance in respect of elections for the Scottish Parliament is set out at paragraph 13 of the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  The reasons for a special adviser's resignation are a private matter between the department and adviser, and are therefore exempt from disclosure under paragraph 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Information.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans ministers of the Department have to(a)visit Scotland on official business, (b)announce public appointments and (c)make Ministerial announcements in April. [103654]

  Clare Short
  Departmental business during the campaign period preceding elections to the Scottish Parliament will be conducted in accordance with the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments in respect of elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

SCOTLAND

  Community Pharmacies
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the(a)Office of Fair Trading, (b)the Scottish Executive and (c)the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in relation to their recommendation that the control of entry regulations for community pharmacy should be lifted and its application to Scotland. [100609]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Since the Office of Fair Trading report was published, the Scottish Executive have been consulting key stakeholders in Scotland about the response to the report. The Scottish Executive have kept the Scotland Office informed about these consultations. Scotland Office officials have also participated in interdepartmental discussions on the report.

  Departmental Telephone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the most recent internal phone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [101787]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A staff telephone directory is held electronically within the Department and it is updated regularly, as required. It is an internal document but key numbers are publicly available in publications such as the Civil Service Year Book.

  Employers Liability Insurance
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1)what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive with regard to employers' liability insurance; [100578]

  (2)what discussions she has had with the Department for Work and Pensions on its forthcoming report on employers' liability insurance. [100579]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office wrote to a number of organisations in Scotland to ensure that they were aware of the current review of employers' liability compulsory insurance. Both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive have received representations from the business community about this issue. We are ensuring that the Department for Work and Pensions are aware of the points made. DWP are keeping both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive closely informed about progress with the review. The Scotland Office is also a member of the Insurance Cover Working Group, set up by the Home Office, to consider issues facing the voluntary and community sector regarding insurance cover.

  Friends of Scotland Website
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have visited the Friends of Scotland website from(a)the UK and (b)outside the UK. [102997]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since its launch in July 2002, the Friends of Scotland web-site has proved highly successful. As at end February, it recorded 1,760,685 hits. There were 41,221 visits to the site; 26,290 (63.8 per cent.)with international domain names and a further 5,956 visits where the origin cannot be identified.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost has been of(a)setting up and (b)maintaining the Friends of Scotland website. [102998]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The current Friends of Scotland website was established on 23 July 2002. The start up cost was £73,583 including VAT. The website is proving to be a major success and continues to evolve and develop. As at end February, the estimated cost of maintenance and further development of the site is £43,000.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times since 2001 she has taken flights on departmental duties in the UK; how many of these were(a)charter flights, (b)first or club class and (c)by helicopter; and who accompanied her on each trip. [95393]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I make regular flights between Scotland and London on departmental duties but information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Since 2001, I have accompanied my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister twice on non-commercial flights between London and Scotland. I have not used helicopters for travel within the United Kingdom.
  790W
  All travel was undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the objective of Government policy in Scotland is to maximise take-up of post office card accounts; and if she will make a statement. [103177]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government's policy is to ensure that customers can choose the type of account that best suits their needs following the move to direct payment of state benefits. The Post Office card account is one of three options which benefit claimants are being presented with. Regardless whether claimants use the card account, an existing bank account or open a basic bank account, they will still be able to uplift benefits in cash at post offices.

  Departmental Officer
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of the cost to the Scotland Office of the offices occupied by its staff in(a)Edinburgh, (b)Glasgow and (c)Leith in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [90379]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  The Department rents offices in Edinburgh and it shares accommodation in Glasgow and Leith with the Scottish Executive. The annual cost of occupying the offices was as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  *438,000

  2000–01

  721,000

  2001–02

  683,000

  * From 1 July 1999

  Note:

  These costs include, where appropriate, rental, rates, heat and power, security, cleaning, repairs, maintenance and water.

  Service Delivery Agreement
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scotland Office's service delivery agreement for 2003 to 2006 will be published. [94108]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office departmental report for 2003 will report on progress in relation to the 2002–03 Service Delivery Agreement. It will also provide key performance targets for 2003–04 but, given that the department does not have significant executive responsibilities, these will not constitute a Service Delivery Agreement as such.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policy her Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100924]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department discourages smoking in the workplace, due to its effects on health. Smoking is not, therefore, permitted at any time in buildings
  791W
  occupied by the Department, except in designated smoking areas. Such areas are made available, as a concession, only where it is practicable to do so.

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many university students her Department has supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what her policy is on work placements; what plans she has to develop such schemes; and what her policy is on paying their university fees. [98539]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In the last year my Department has provided one university student work placement. We support the use of work placements and we shall look for opportunities to extend the scheme within the Department. My Department does not pay student university fees.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Advocate-General pursuant to her oral answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 151W on the time limit for considering bills passed by the Scottish Parliament, what plans she has to consider the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland)Bill by 28 March. [102916]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Since my oral answer of 11 March Official Report, column 151, Stage 3 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill took place on 12 March, and on that date the Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament. The period of four weeks beginning with the passing of the Bill applies in terms of Section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998, and this is not affected by dissolution of the Scottish Parliament. As with all Bills, I will consider the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill during that period.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many successful applications there have been in(a)London and (b)other metropolitan authorities to set up arms length management organisations in each of the past three years. [103032]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following authorities have so far been allocated places on the Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) programme for improving the quality and management of local authority housing:

  Round 1

  London

  Hounslow

  Westminster

  Metropolitan

  792W

  Kirklees

  Rochdale

  Wigan

  Other

  Ashfield

  Derby

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Round 2

  London

  Brent

  Hillingdon

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Waltham Forest

  Metropolitan

  Barnsley

  Bolton

  Leeds

  Oldham

  Salford Other

  Blyth Valley

  Carrick

  Cheltenham

  Colchester

  All ALMOs in Round 1 have qualified for additional funding from 2002–03. Those in Round 2 have been offered additional funding from 2003–04 if they achieve at least a "good" rating from the Housing Inspectorate.

  Brownfield Sites
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what mechanism exists to reclassify brown-field sites as green-field sites where the characteristics of a brown-field site are no longer present; and how much land has been thus reclassified since July 2001. [103828]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are various definitions of a brown-field site. The National Land Use Database (NLUD) uses the definition of 'previously-developed land' (PDL) provided by planning policy guidance for housing (PPG3). The definition excludes land that was"previously-developed but where the remains of any structure or activity have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings), and where there is a clear reason that could outweigh the re-use of the site—such as its contribution to nature conservation—or it has subsequently been put to an amenity use and cannot be regarded as requiring redevelopment."
  In updating NLUD-PDL records, local authorities should report changes to the status of a site (normally through redevelopment) but information of the type sought is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fire Prevention
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what Government funds have been allocated for fire prevention awareness in each of the past five years. [103671]
  793W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Funds have been allocated to the office's expenditure on increasing public awareness of fire safety and measures to prevent fire as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  0.8

  1999–2000

  2.9

  2000–01

  4.9

  2001–02

  5.9

  2002–03

  8.25

  Fire Service
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1)what(a)appeal system and (b)independent body is available to local people in the event of a proposal to close a fire station following the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947; and if he will make a statement; [103391]

  (2)what measures the Government has in place to ensure effective local consultation following the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 with respect to the fire service. [103390]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A fire authority is under a general duty under Best Value legislation to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. This includes a requirement to consult locally about how to fulfil this duty. HM Fire Service Inspectorate will continue to monitor the performance of fire authorities in providing effective fire cover arrangements.

  Draft guidance to fire authorities on the need to consult local communities about significant changes in fire cover following the proposed repeal of part of section 19 was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 5 March. This draft guidance is being circulated to a wide range of stakeholders for comments.

  Key Workers
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 330W, whether his Department considers a supermarket checkout operator to be a key worker. [103280]

  Mr. McNulty
  Support being provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for key worker housing will target key public sector workers, as set out in `Sustainable Communities: building for the future'. This excludes supermarket checkout operators. Wider housing policies to increase the supply of affordable housing will benefit key workers outside the public sector.

  Light Pollution
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to encourage the use of downward directed lighting to improve the visibility of the night sky. [103181]
  794W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Government has issued "Lighting in the Countryside: Towards good practice" and guidance on good street lighting practice to encourage the use of lighting types which prevent or minimise unwanted upward illumination.

  Planning
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the timetable of expenditure for the additional monies allocated to planning. [103821]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to pay the allocations of planning delivery grant for 2003–04 to local authorities and national parks in early April and to the regional planning bodies in early May.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the twin-funding of planning applications. [103822]

  Mr. McNulty
  Planning services are funded from contributions by local taxpayers through council tax, precepts and levies, grant from central government (including the planning delivery grant), and fees paid by some applicants. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently undertaking a review of the fee regime which, among other things, is looking at the relative burdens on the contributors.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with local authorities and the Local Government Association on the subject of third party right of appeal, with specific reference to local authorities granting their own permission and departures from the local plans. [103823]

  Mr. McNulty
  None. The Government's position on third party rights of appeal was set out in the Planning Green Paper (published in December 2001). A wide range of bodies, including local authorities and the Local Government Association commented on the Green Paper.

  Private Landlords
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2003,Official Report, column 840W, on private landlords, for what reasons he has not published the results of the consultation on selective licensing of private landlords in accordance with criterion 6 of Cabinet Office guidelines on written consultations; and if he will make a statement. [103019]

  Mr. McNulty
  The draft Housing Bill, to be published in the next few weeks, will make clear how the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister proposes to take forward the proposals contained in the consultation paper on the selective licensing of private landlords. The Bill will be subject to further consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and a summary of the responses to the earlier consultation will be published as part of the package accompanying the Bill.

  Regional Governance
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimates have been made by his Department as to the total cost of the soundings exercise on the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly. [103262]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers)on 14 January 2003,Official Report, columns 601–602W.

  Right to Buy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish the research undertaken by Bristol and Birmingham universities into the impact of the February 1999 changes to limits on Right to Buy discounts. [103233]

  (a)ADP funded DIYSO purchases

  Region

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  London

  1,066

  528

  602

  479

  25

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  629

  389

  356

  328

  48

  0

  0

  0

  South West

  479

  281

  214

  184

  39

  0

  0

  0

  East Midlands

  310

  147

  151

  142

  28

  0

  0

  0

  Eastern

  332

  224

  221

  143

  14

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  510

  306

  158

  49

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Yorkshire and Humber

  353

  208

  104

  65

  19

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  203

  110

  51

  21

  1

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  611

  242

  128

  61

  8

  0

  0

  0

  England total

  4,493

  2,435

  1,985

  1,472

  191

  0

  0

  0

  (b)LASHG funded DIYSO purchases

  Region

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  London

  27

  15

  16

  7

  9

  13

  9

  10

  South East

  273

  193

  217

  161

  188

  250

  238

  201

  South West

  4

  4

  0

  7

  6

  22

  16

  6

  East Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  9

  15

  4

  Eastern

  4

  5

  2

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  West Midlands

  1

  13

  17

  16

  18

  16

  22

  17

  Yorkshire and Humber

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England total

  312

  230

  252

  192

  226

  311

  300

  239

  (a)and (b)DIYSO purchases by year since 1995–96, by London local authority

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  ADP

  LA SHG

  ADP

  LA SHG

  ADP

  LA SHG

  ADP

  LA SHG

  Barking and Dagenham

  11

  6

  11

  7

  10

  8

  10

  2

  Barnet

  36

  0

  15

  0

  20

  0

  35

  0

  Bexley

  16

  0

  11

  0

  6

  0

  6

  0

  Brent

  43

  0

  13

  0

  11

  0

  7

  0

  Bromley

  22

  0

  5

  0

  14

  0

  12

  0

  Camden

  49

  0

  33

  0

  60

  0

  31

  0

  Croydon

  12

  0

  4

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing

  60

  0

  29

  0

  16

  0

  16

  0

  Enfield

  35

  0

  13

  0

  14

  0

  13

  0

  Greenwich

  22

  0

  9

  0

  16

  0

  11

  0

  Hackney

  97

  0

  34

  0

  45

  0

  31

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  43

  0

  45

  0

  40

  0

  14

  0

  Haringey

  69

  0

  15

  0

  17

  0

  26

  0

  Harrow

  20

  0

  4

  0

  8

  0

  0

  0

  796W
  Mr. McNulty
  It is expected that the research report will be published in early May 2003. A copy of the full report and summary of the research will be placed in the Library of the House at the time of publication.

  Shared Ownership
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership (DIYSO)purchases were funded through(a)the Housing Corporation and (b)local authority social housing grant in each Government office region in each year since 1995–96; and how many DIYSO purchases were funded through (i) the Housing Corporation and (ii)local authority social housing grant in each local authority in London in each year since 1995–96. [102312]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following tables show Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership (DIYSO) purchases each year since 1995–96, broken down by region and by London local authority.
  797W

  (a) and (b) DIYSO purchases by year since 1995–96, by London local authority

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  ADP

  LA SHG

  ADP

  LA SHG

  ADP

  LA SHG

  ADP

  LA SHG

  Havering

  15

  2

  6

  1

  5

  0

  5

  0

  Hillingdon

  38

  18

  18

  6

  15

  1

  1

  0

  Hounslow

  42

  1

  30

  0

  20

  0

  10

  0

  Islington

  69

  0

  31

  0

  32

  0

  22

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  28

  0

  20

  0

  23

  7

  32

  2

  Kingston upon Thames

  30

  0

  6

  0

  22

  0

  12

  0

  Lambeth

  25

  0

  26

  0

  22

  0

  11

  0

  Lewisham

  31

  0

  19

  0

  14

  0

  15

  0

  Merton

  18

  0

  9

  0

  8

  0

  5

  0

  Newham

  32

  0

  19

  0

  32

  0

  29

  0

  Redbridge

  16

  0

  5

  0

  14

  0

  19

  0

  Richmond on Thames

  16

  0

  9

  0

  10

  0

  7

  3

  Southwark

  16

  0

  22

  0

  13

  0

  14

  0

  Sutton

  20

  0

  7

  0

  11

  0

  5

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  35

  0

  29

  0

  14

  0

  12

  0

  Waltham Forest

  23

  0

  7

  0

  28

  0

  20

  0

  Wandsworth

  42

  0

  15

  0

  22

  0

  31

  0

  Westminster

  21

  0

  9

  0

  15

  0

  17

  0

  Out of London1

  14

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,066

  27

  528

  15

  602

  16

  479

  7

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  ADP

  LA SHG

  ADP2

  LA SHG

  ADP2

  LA SHG

  ADP2

  LA SHG

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bexley

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  0

  5

  4

  4

  2

  Camden

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Enfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lewisham

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merton

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Newham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Richmond on Thames

  0

  0

  0

  5

  6

  Southwark

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  8

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Westminster

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Out of London1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25

  9

  0

  13

  0

  9

  0

  10

  1Figures prior to 1997–98 were recorded by sponsor region and by purchase LA location; they are now recorded by sponsor LA location. On this table those before 1997–98 are by purchase location, though funded by London HAs/LAs; those after 1997–98 are by sponsor location.

  2From 1999–2000, HC ADP was not used to fund DIYSO purchases.

  798W

  Thames Gateway
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new homes need to be built in the Thames Gateway London area to meet his targets as set out in his Sustainable Communities Plan. [98615]

  Mr. McNulty
  The draft Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London indicates that at least 46,000 new homes can be built by 2016 in the London Gateway development areas.
  800W
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whom he has consulted in determining the best approach for the development of the Thames Gateway London area and for setting up as an East London urban development corporation. [98618]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his Ministers met on a regular basis with the members of the Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership to discuss delivery arrangements for Thames Gateway. He has also visited Thames Gateway and discussed delivery issues with local stakeholders.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  "Get Home Safe" Campaign
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many alcohol-related incidents the Police Service of Northern Ireland dealt with in South Belfast in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002; and what impact the "Get Home Safe" Campaign has had. [103342]

  Jane Kennedy
  The statistics requested are not available as the PSNI does not maintain crime statistics on an alcohol related basis.

  The "Get Home Safe" campaign has had a number of significant impacts namely:
  The number of assaults was 535 compared to 654 for the same period in 2001—a decrease of 19.2 per cent.
  The number of serious assaults was 158 compared to 236 for the same period in 2001—a decrease of 33 per cent.
  Alcohol consumption was an element in 75 per cent. of all reported assaults
  87 per cent. of the target group for the advertising campaign recalled some aspect of the campaign
  40 per cent. of the target group claimed they had changed their behaviour arising from the campaign
  Sexual assaults were reduced by 40 per cent.
  Three new CCTV cameras provided by private sector funding
  Almost 200 per cent. rise in the number of people reported for prosecution for disorderly behaviour (rather than a caution)
  All illegal street traders removed, leading to significant reduction in disorderly incidents.

  Banbridge Academy
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the proposal contained in the Contenders List for the Schools Capital Building Programme to provide an extension and refurbishment to Banbridge Academy was unsuccessful; and what criteria were used to make this decision. [102932]

  Jane Kennedy
  The schools' capital programme is determined on the basis of the highest educational need within the resources available. A scheme to extend and refurbish Banbridge Academy was one of 46 high priority schemes that met the criteria to compete for funding in this year's programme. However, as there were insufficient resources for all the competing schools, funding was allocated on the basis of priority of educational need. Banbridge Academy was one of the schools that did not succeed this time round. The criteria used to prioritise educational need (in order of weight) takes account of the suitability for teaching and learning, the condition of the school and the number of temporary classrooms.

  Courthouse Closures
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Lord Chancellor's Department about(a) the proposed closure of courthouses in Northern Ireland and (b) the timetable for such closures. [98331]
  802W
  Mr. Browne
  The management of the courts estate is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. During the past couple of years there have been a number of informal discussions between NIO Ministers and Ministers from the Lord Chancellor's Department on the issue of courthouse closures in Northern Ireland as part of normal business of keeping each other informed of developments.

  Crime (South Belfast)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland regarding increasing resources to tackle crime in South Belfast. [103340]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State has been advised by the PSNI that they are currently reviewing resource levels in every District Command Unit. The findings of the review will be advised to Chief Officers and District Commanders in the near future.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to boost public confidence in safety from crime in South Belfast. [103341]

  Jane Kennedy
  The police in South Belfast plan the use of their resources to meet local community needs with a large percentage of personnel being exclusively dedicated to community policing. Crime Prevention and Community Safety Officers are responsible for the development and co-ordination of crime reduction strategies and crime prevention advice and guidance to vulnerable groups and those residing and working within crime "Hotspot" areas. Specific examples of a range of steps being taken to boost public confidence in safety from crime include:the development of a Student/University/Resident Forum to address youth crime anti social behaviour and student related disorder.
  The Get Home Safe Campaign, a project with a range of initiatives including: a door registration scheme involving the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade, strict enforcement of drinking byelaws, the introduction of a radio link to improve communications between 37 licensed premises and the PSNI and three new CCTV provided by the private sector.
  The promotion of Crimestoppers
  15,000 leaflet drop to students living in South Belfast outlining crime prevention measures.

  Early Release Scheme
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners have been released under the early release scheme since 10 April 1998; to which paramilitary groups they were affiliated; how many have been recalled due to further criminal activity; and how many would still be in prison today if the early release scheme was not in operation. [101737]

  Jane Kennedy
  Since the introduction of the early release scheme in April 1998, 447 prisoners have been
  803W
  released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 ("the Act"). 156 were life sentence prisoners and 291 were determinate sentence prisoners.

  The following table sets out details of the perceived paramilitary association of the 447 individuals released. Information is held, for management purposes, in relation to the perceived paramilitary association of prisoners in Northern Ireland.

  At 10 March 2003, seven of the 447 persons released under the terms of the Act had been recalled to prison due to their involvement in further criminal activity during their licence period.

  Of the 291 determinate sentence prisoners released under the Act, 54 (19 per cent.) had sentences which would not yet have expired and would still be in custody at this stage. It is not possible to provide an equivalent figure for the 156 life sentence prisoners. Unlike determinate sentence prisoners, there is no specific discharge date, each case being reviewed individually. All released lifers were subject to risk assessment as a requirement of the Act and remain on licence for life.

  Breakdown of releases by perceived affiliation

  Perceived affiliation

  Total

  PIRA

  206

  UDA

  87

  UVF

  67

  INLA

  32

  LVF

  17

  UFF

  14

  RHC

  3

  'Loyalist'

  6

  'Republican'

  3

  All figures £000

  Board

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Belfast

  Statutory capital allocation

  0

  0

  401

  133

  19

  Total recurrent allocation

  230

  561

  836

  756

  853

  Western

  Statutory capital allocation

  0

  40

  1,377

  1,436

  1,012

  Total recurrent allocation

  406

  1,049

  1,524

  1,566

  1,779

  North eastern

  Statutory capital allocation

  81

  64

  1,344

  700

  379

  Total recurrent allocation

  381

  1,176

  1,917

  2,141

  2,163

  South eastern

  Statutory capital allocation

  202

  312

  591

  681

  660

  Total recurrent allocation

  243

  840

  1,463

  1.920

  1,822

  Southern

  Statutory capital allocation

  0

  65

  770

  1,238

  1,298

  Total recurrent allocation

  384

  811

  1,393

  1,889

  2,058

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the places per ward criterion used to calculate the funding for PEAGS places has not been used for calculating places for 2003–04. [101927]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education does not allocate funding to Pre-School Education Advisory
  804W

  Breakdown of releases by perceived affiliation

  Perceived affiliation

  Total

  No affiliation

  12

  Grand total

  447

  Education Funding
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding has been allocated to(a) each education board, (b) the statutory nursery school sector of each education board and (c) the private or voluntary playschool sector of each education board to provide PEAGS places in each of the past five years. [102023]

  Jane Kennedy
  Each Education and Library Board receives for its Pre-school Education Advisory Group (PEAG) a capital allocation for the PEAG's building programme of nursery schools and units, and a single recurrent allocation from which PEAGs must meet:the running costs of those nursery schools and units for a period between their opening and their being absorbed into the main schools budget; and the costs of funding places in the voluntary and private sector.

  Included in the recurrent allocations is an amount to assist the Boards with administrative and publicity costs. Recurrent funding for nursery schools and units after being absorbed into the main schools budget and for nursery schools and units pre-existing the Pre-School Education Expansion Programme, is allocated through LMS, and not to PEAGs.

  The allocations to the Boards for the last five financial years are as follows. Separate allocations are not made in respect of the voluntary and private sectors.

  Groups (PEAGs) using a places per ward criterion, but rather on the basis of annual plans for their areas produced by the PEAGs and approved by the Department. While in any given case PEAGs will look at the level of provision at individual ward level, they should also take into account the situation in neighbouring wards, so as to avoid over as well as under-provision.
  805W
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will undertake to provide funding of PEAGS places for the Playgroup at Londonderry Primary School in Newtownards. [102021]

  Jane Kennedy
  I am satisfied that the present number of pre-school places in Newtownards funded by the South Eastern Board's Pre-school Education Advisory Group is sufficient to satisfy the demand from children in their final pre-school year. I am therefore unable to give the undertaking requested.

  Giant's Causeway
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in establishing a world class visitor centre at the Giant's Causeway in County Antrim. [103349]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have met with the key players involved in establishing a world class visitors centre at the Giants Causeway and a further round of follow-up meetings with officials in my Department has also been concluded.

  Efforts are now being made to exploit the common ground that has emerged from these discussions. While both myself and my colleague the Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure are finalising our thoughts on a way forward, it should be stressed that progress will be achieved only if the relevant parties work together and with Government to ensure that a world class solution is achieved.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list IT contracts in his Department above £50 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [99002]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office, during the last 10 years have not awarded any IT contracts above £50 million.

  The Northern Ireland Administration, during the last 10 years, have not awarded any IT contracts above £50 million.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [90863]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In the Northern Ireland Office 34 out of 1,596 full-time equivalent staff job share.

  Job sharing is only one of a number of alternative and flexible working patterns that employees are welcome to take up. There are also, for example, 142 who work part-time.
  806W
  In the Northern Ireland Administration 276 out of the 26,300 permanent staff employed job share.

  Job sharing is only one of a number of work-life balance options available to employees. Over 2,500 work part-time hours. Flexible working hours and alternative working patterns also operate.

  As a major employer, the Northern Ireland Civil Service has for many years recognised the benefits that both individuals and the organisation can realise by enabling employees to have a flexible approach to their working day.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department was in 2002. [101543]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers, and (b) taxis for the Northern Ireland Office for the 2001–02 financial year was:

  (a) Ministerial cars and drivers: £361,083.83

  (b) Taxis for the Department: £18,007.60

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [101485]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the financial year.

  Peace II
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding is available to each Northern Ireland Department in respect of Peace II; how much has been(a) distributed and (b) committed; for how much applications have been received but funding has not yet been committed; how much remains for which the process has not yet begun; and how much the Department will be unable to process before the deadline. [102564]

  Mr. Pearson
  Northern Ireland Departments are Implementing Bodies for some £152 million of the Peace II Programme. The information requested for this expenditure is set out in the following table. All Departments have indicated that the full amounts will be committed before the 31 December 2004 deadline.
  807W

  £ million

  (A) Funding available

  (B) Distributed (spent)

  (C) Committed

  (D) Pending

  (E) Amount remaining (A-(C+D))

  DARD

  37.889

  0.289

  6.048

  7.131

  24.709

  DE

  1.720

  0

  0

  1.028

  0.692

  DEL

  9.348

  0.377

  4.825

  —

  4.523

  DETI

  62.164

  5.342

  37.592

  17.429

  7.143

  DCAL

  4.800

  0

  0

  2.750

  2.050

  DSD

  16.900

  0

  2.000

  2.600

  12.300

  OFMDFM

  6.517

  0.084

  4.062

  13.375

  0

  DRD

  7.091

  1.726

  5.902

  0

  1.189

  Police Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of each category of(a) officers and (b) staff left the Police Service in each of the past three years, broken down by perceived community origin and sex. [101064]

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Year

  CB1

  CB1

  CB2

  CB2

  CB3

  CB3

  Male

  male

  Female

  female

  Total

  (a)Police officers

  2000

  414

  91

  27

  6

  14

  3

  395

  87

  60

  13

  455

  2001

  1,418

  88

  144

  9

  41

  3

  1,502

  94

  101

  6

  1,603

  2002

  832

  88

  81

  8

  37

  4

  863

  91

  87

  9

  950

  (b)Civilian staff

  2001

  87

  66

  22

  17

  22

  17

  57

  44

  74

  56

  131

  2002

  109

  72

  28

  19

  13

  9

  61

  41

  89

  59

  150

  CB1-Perceived Protestant

  CB2-Perceived Roman Catholic

  CB3-Not determined

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) women and (b) members of the ethnic minorities have been recruited by the Police Service of Northern Ireland since the coming into operation of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. [93668]

  Mr. Browne
  Since 4 November 2001, 196 women have been appointed to the Police Service, a figure which represents 32 per cent. of the total number of 613 recruits.

  Only one member of an ethnic minority has been appointed since that time.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people claiming links to(a) the UUP, (b) the SDLP, (c) the DUP, (d) Sinn Fein, (e) the Alliance Party, (f) the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, (g) the PUP, (h) the UKUP and (i) other political groupings or independent political candidates (i) applied to sit on a District Police Partnership (DPP), (ii) were judged appointable to a DPP and (iii) were appointed to a DPP. [103343]

  Jane Kennedy
  All candidates for appointment as independent members of District Policing Partnerships were asked a political activity monitoring question, in line with the guide to public appointments. The information was not made available to the council or
  808W
  Jane Kennedy
  The number of police officers who have left the Police Service in the past three years, broken down into perceived community origin and gender, are shown in the following table. Data are also included in respect of civilian staff directly recruited into the police service but are only available for the past two years. Data for civilian staff do not include details of those staff currently or previously attached to the police service on secondment from the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

  Policing Board panels. The Board panels considered anonymised lists of appointable candidates. The information requested is set out in the following table.

  Party

  Applicants

  Appointable candidates

  Appointments

  UUP

  113

  64

  4

  SDLP

  44

  30

  15

  DUP

  38

  18

  3

  Sinn Fein

  1

  0

  0

  Alliance

  24

  17

  7

  NIWC

  14

  10

  6

  PUP

  16

  10

  1

  UKUP

  7

  5

  0

  Other: British Labour

  1

  1

  1

  Other: Conservative

  4

  0

  0

  Other: Democratic Left

  1

  1

  1

  Other: Independent

  19

  15

  2

  Other: Independent Unionist

  3

  2

  0

  Other: Labour Coalition

  1

  1

  1

  Other: Labour NI

  3

  1

  0

  Other: New Labour

  1

  0

  0

  Other: National Labour

  1

  0

  0

  Other: Unionist, not specified

  2

  0

  0

  Other: OUP

  2

  1

  0

  Other: Socialist Party

  1

  0

  0

  Other: UDP

  4

  2

  2

  Other: Ulster Independent Voice

  1

  0

  0

  Other: Ulster Unionist Assembly Party

  1

  1

  1

  Other: Ulster Unionist Council

  2

  2

  0

  Other: Workers Party

  4

  3

  2

  Other: Yes Campaign

  1

  1

  0

  Other: Ratepayers Association

  2

  2

  2

  Pre-School Provision
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many PEAGS places have been allocated to each nursery and playschool in the South Eastern Education and Library Board in each of the past five years. [102022]

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Annahilt Pre-School Playgroup

  -

  -

  -

  18

  18

  Ardglass Community Playgroup

  6

  8

  10

  16

  16

  Ballybeen Women's Centre Playgroup, Dundonald

  9

  9

  10

  10

  10

  Ballycrochan Playgroup, Gangor

  6

  6

  10

  20

  21

  Ballygowan Community Playgroup

  6

  10

  24

  24

  24

  Ballyholme Presbyterian Church Playgroup, Bangor

  -

  13

  11

  19

  20

  Bally kinler Community Playgroup

  -

  -

  10

  24

  18

  Ballymacward PreSchool Playgroup, Lisburn

  13

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Ballymote Children's Centre, Downpatrick

  -

  -

  13

  Withdrawn

  -

  Ballywalter Playgroup

  -

  -

  -

  12

  13

  Bangor Abbey Playgroup

  -

  -

  -

  13

  13

  Bangor West Nursery Group

  5

  10

  19

  21

  18

  Bees Nees Early Years Centre, Newtownards

  -

  -

  -

  16

  18

  Bo-Peep Corner Playgroup, Bangor

  5

  8

  15

  20

  18

  Bumbles Playgroup, Dundonald

  10

  10

  20

  20

  20

  Carrowdore Community Playgroup

  -

  -

  10

  20

  22

  Carryduff Pre-School Playgroup

  8

  26

  20

  34

  45

  Castle Playgoup, Lisburn

  9

  11

  18

  10

  Withdrawn

  Castlewellan Community Playgroup

  -

  -

  -

  18

  10

  Cedar Children's Centre, Crossgar

  5

  10

  21

  Changed to statutory nursery unit

  Chatterbox Playgroup, Lisburn

  7

  9

  10

  24

  18

  Chirpy Chicks Playgroup, Greyabbey

  -

  9

  10

  18

  18

  Chuckles Playgroup, Newtownards

  5

  7

  10

  15

  15

  Cregagh PreSchool Playgroup, Belfast

  6

  15

  15

  16

  16

  Crossgar Community Playgroup

  5

  10

  17

  18

  18

  Dromara Playgroup

  11

  13

  20

  26

  32

  Dramaness PS Playgroup

  -

  -

  -

  18

  13

  Drumaroad Cross Community Playgroup

  9

  10

  10

  12

  15

  Drumbeg Playgroup

  -

  -

  -

  -

  8

  Dundrum Cross Community Playgroup

  -

  13

  16

  20

  12

  Dunmarry Community Playgroup

  -

  -

  24

  24

  24

  Early Days Playgroup, Bangor

  5

  5

  22

  24

  22

  Glencraig Playgroup, Craigavad

  6

  12

  20

  18

  17

  Glenmore Community Playgroup, Lisburn

  8

  11

  12

  Withdrawn

  -

  Grove Community Playgroup, Lisburn

  5

  5

  10

  10

  Withdrawn

  Happy Hours Playgroup, Bangor

  -

  9

  11

  Withdrawn

  -

  Hickory Dickory Dock, Castlewellan

  -

  5

  10

  9

  9

  Kilcoo Playgroup

  -

  -

  -

  12

  18

  Killough Playgroup

  -

  -

  10

  16

  16

  Killyleagh Community Playgroup

  -

  -

  10

  18

  18

  Kilmood Playgroup, Killinchy

  -

  -

  11

  23

  24

  Kinders Day Care, Dunmurry

  -

  -

  28

  26

  Withdrawn

  Kircubbin Pre-School Playgroup

  -

  -

  -

  26

  32

  Legacurry Playgroup, Lisburn

  -

  -

  -

  14

  17

  Little Acorn's Playgroup, Bangor

  6

  15

  14

  32

  26

  Little Doves Community Playgroup, Newtownards

  -

  -

  -

  14

  15

  Little Flower Playgroup, Bangor

  8

  13

  11

  15

  12

  Little Oaks Playgroup, Lisburn

  8

  14

  15

  24

  18

  Little Owls Playgroup, Conlig

  8

  9

  10

  15

  Withdrawn

  Little Sunbeams Playgroup, Saintfield

  -

  -

  -

  12

  16

  Loughinisland Playgroup, Downpatrick

  -

  14

  14

  20

  19

  Community Playgroup, Dunmurry

  -

  -

  -

  -

  12

  Mount Oriel Playgoup, Belfast Mickey Mouse

  18

  18

  24

  23

  18

  Movilla Abbey Playgroup, Newtownards

  5

  8

  12

  24

  26

  Nailery Creche, Crossgar

  3

  Withdrawn

  -

  -

  -

  Naiscoil Dhun Padraig

  -

  -

  10

  16

  16

  Naiscoil Uac Tar Tire, Castlewellan

  -

  7

  20

  10

  10

  Newcastle Pre-School Playgroup

  9

  14

  10

  24

  18

  Oakwood Pre-School Playgroup, Dunmurry

  -

  -

  -

  13

  21

  Paddington Corner. Bangor

  5

  15

  13

  15

  13

  Play-away Childcare Centre, Newtownards

  -

  -

  -

  14

  16

  Poppins Day Nursery, Moira

  -

  -

  10

  16

  16

  Portaferry Playgroup

  10

  12

  10

  20

  18

  Rainbow Corner Playgroup, Moira

  -

  -

  -

  15

  15

  Rathkeltair Cross Playgroup, Downpatrick

  -

  16

  16

  18

  16

  810W
  Jane Kennedy
  The South Eastern Education and Library Board's Pre-School Education Advisory Group (PEAG) has allocated places to providers in the voluntary and private sectors since the start of the Pre-School Education Expansion Programme as follows:
  811W

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Redburn Playgroup, Holywood

  -

  -

  10

  20

  18

  Roisin Ban, Dunmurry

  7

  Withdrawn

  -

  -

  -

  Rumble's Playgroup, Lisburn

  14

  24

  19

  24

  16

  Saintfield Playgroup

  -

  -

  10

  Withdrawn

  -

  Saul Cross Community Playgroup, Downpatrick

  -

  -

  -

  12

  12

  Scallywags Playgroup, Newtownards

  -

  13

  20

  15

  18

  Scoil Na Fuiseoige, Twinbrook

  12

  12

  12

  24

  18

  St. Bernard's Playgroup, Belfast

  -

  -

  15

  21

  10

  St. Comgall's Playgroup, Bangor

  5

  7

  10

  10

  10

  St. Finian's Playgroup, Newtownards

  -

  -

  -

  17

  18

  St. Joseph's Playgroup, Carryduff

  10

  10

  St. Joseph's Playgroup, Crossgar

  -

  7

  15

  24

  18

  St. Mark's Playgroup, Twinbrook

  -

  13

  Withdrawn

  -

  -

  Strangford and District Playgroup, Downpatrick

  -

  11

  11

  11

  Excluded

  Sunshine Playgroup, Lisburn

  -

  -

  20

  18

  18

  Teconnaught Playgroup, Crossgar

  5

  16

  16

  18

  18

  The Shell Playgroup, Comber

  -

  -

  -

  18

  10

  The Old Schoolhouse Nursery, Hillsborough

  7

  Withdrawn

  -

  -

  -

  The Playcentre at Manor Court, Newtownards

  14

  15

  15

  18

  26

  Tiddliwinks Playgroup, Bangor

  -

  14

  11

  23

  20

  Tiny Toons Playgroup, Downpatrick

  6

  10

  18

  18

  12

  Toddle-in Playgroup, Moneyreagh

  -

  -

  15

  17

  22

  Sex Education
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the advice issued by the Department of Education on the teaching of sex education in Northern Ireland. [103628]

  Jane Kennedy
  Following a major consultation exercise with interested parties and organisations conducted by the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, on 24 August 2001 the Department of Education issued to all schools a circular on Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE), together with comprehensive teacher guidance material, intended to help schools develop their own policy on RSE and provide a programme of RSE appropriate to the needs and maturity of their pupils.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the rate of staff(a) absenteeism and (b) sickness was in his Department and each of its agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03; what the target set is for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [93511]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In the Northern Ireland Office unauthorised absence is recorded as unpaid leave and is associated with other properly authorised unpaid absence and cannot be disaggregated.

  Sick absence figures are recorded by financial year for Northern Ireland Civil Servants (NIGS) and by calendar year for Home Civil Service (HCS) staff.

  The available information is as follows:

  Northern Ireland Civil Servants

  Days sick absence per staff year

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Core Department (including Compensation Agency and Forensic Science Agency)

  12.8

  13.4

  Northern Ireland Prison Service—(non-uniformed grades)

  11.9

  15.4

  812W
  Two N1CS staff are on secondment to NIO NDPBs and no sick absence was reported.

  The Northern Ireland Departments have set composite targets for a reduction in sick absence from 15.1 days in 2000–01 to 13.9 days by the end of 2002–03 and 13.0 days by the end of 2004–05. The NIO aims to achieve similar reductions in respect of NICS staff in the Department.

  Home Civil Servants

  Year

  Days sick absence per staff year

  1998

  6.5

  1999

  8.0

  2000

  9.3

  2001

  10.0

  The figures for 2002 will be available shortly.

  All Whitehall Departments were required in 1999 to reduce sickness absence by 20 per cent. by 2001 and by 30 per cent. by 2003. For the Northern Ireland Office (HCS staff) this was measured against the 1998 baseline of 6.5 days.

  A range of initiatives has been implemented to assist in reducing sickness absence rates for both staff groups. These include raising awareness of stress management, a departmental health awareness programme, development of a departmental action plan to deliver workplace health improvement, provision of family friendly policies and fair application of inefficiency procedures.

  In addition the Department plans to delegate responsibility for attendance management to line managers later this year and it is hoped that greater involvement at line management level will have a positive impact on the rate of sick absence.

  In the Northern Ireland Administration unauthorised absence is recorded as unpaid leave and is associated with other properly authorised unpaid absence and cannot be disaggregated.
  813W
  The information sought is only readily available for non-industrial civil servants for the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02. Comparable figures for industrial civil servants, agencies and non-departmental public bodies are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The following table reflects the average number of working days lost for the financial years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 for each of the Northern Ireland Departments. Published statistics for 2000–01 and 2001–02 for Northern Ireland Departments are accessible www.dfpni.gov.uk/publications.

  Number of days lost per staff year

  Department

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  DEL

  16.5

  17.9

  19.0

  DSD

  18.5

  18.6

  18.4

  DCAL

  12.7

  14.7

  14.6

  DHSSPS

  14.1

  12.9

  14.6

  DOE

  14.6

  14.6

  14.1

  DFP

  11.3

  12.8

  13.5

  DE

  13.7

  15.7

  13.2

  DETI

  13.2

  12.4

  13.0

  DARD

  13.8

  12.2

  11.8

  OFMDFM

  10.4

  9.7

  11.6

  DRD

  11.4

  12.2

  11.4

  Overall

  15.3

  15.1

  15.1

  Due to the reorganisation of Departments following devolution, the 1999–2000 absence details were analysed according to the Department in which staff were employed at the end of the 1999–2000 financial year. The departmental figures incorporate those for their respective Agencies.

  Northern Ireland Departments have now set individual business driven targets for reduction. When brought together they constitute composite targets for a reduction from a sick absence rate of 15.1 days in 2000–01 to 13.9 days by the end of 2002–03 and 13.0 days by the end of 2004–05.

  The most recent report for 2001–02 identifies an improvement in sick absence levels in a number of Departments but the overall absence level for NI Departments has not changed. While it is recognised that the last two to three years have been a period of major change and upheaval for NI Departments nonetheless the current levels of sick absence continue to be a cause for major concern.

  A range of corporate and departmental initiatives has been and is being taken forward to reduce the current levels of sickness absence. These include a major work force health survey; the introduction of an awareness leaflet for GPs on the support and early return mechanisms available to NICS staff; appointment of two "site" based occupational health nurses on a pilot basis; approval to recruit a psychiatric nurse; and websites on "Attendance Matters" and "Health Matters" to assist NICS managers and staff.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many small businesses have gone out of business in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [103255]
  814W
  Mr. Pearson
  The number of insolvency orders (bankruptcy and compulsory winding up) made against individuals and small businesses in each of the last six financial years is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of insolvency orders

  1996–97

  411

  1997–98

  432

  1998–99

  421

  1999–2000

  393

  2000–01

  338

  2001–02

  265

  Social Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many social housing tenancies will not be varied before the end of March 2003; and whether the tenancies in Northern Ireland will be financially protected as a result of this new measure. [103278]

  Mr. Browne
  As at 10 March 2003, of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's (NIHE) currently occupied stock of 103,353 tenancies and the Housing Association's combined stock of 20, 000, only 887 tenants have been required to or are pending a completion of a Deed of Variation to their current tenancy agreement. This variation is required to enable "Support" to be paid a Transitional Housing Benefit.

  The Department for Social Development has advised the NIHE that in line with practice across the UK, it will honour the total amount of valid Transitional Housing Benefit claims received at 31 March 2003.

  Supporting People Project
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the funds allocated for the Supporting People Project throughout the United Kingdom will be given to Northern Ireland; and whether the funding is in line with the Barnett Formula. [103277]

  Mr. Pearson
  In Northern Ireland funding for supporting people will, in common with the other parts of the United Kingdom, be based upon actual requirements for the three-year period commencing 1 April 2003, rather than upon the Barnett Formula. The Department of Finance and Personnel, in consultation with the Department for Social Development, is currently in negotiations with HM Treasury to agree the allocations.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been identified by the health and social services trusts for transitional housing benefit through the Supporting People Project; and of those identified for benefit, how many will receive it. [103279]

  Mr. Browne
  A total of 887 people have been identified. All those who apply with valid transitional Housing Benefit claims received before 31 March 2003, will be paid.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current trends in(a) long-term and (b) youth unemployment in Northern Ireland. [103242]

  Mr. Pearson
  Latest estimates from the autumn 2002 Labour Force Survey (LFS) indicate that there were 18,000 persons long-term unemployed representing 41 per cent. of the total number of unemployed persons. The total long-term unemployed over the past five years has decreased by just over 40 per cent. from 31,000 in autumn 1997 to 18,000 in autumn 2002.

  The youth unemployment latest estimates indicate that there were 13,000 persons aged 18–24 who were unemployed, with an associated unemployment rate of

  £000

  Year

  District 1

  District 2

  District 3

  District 4

  District 5

  District 6

  District 7

  Total

  (a)Housing improvements Capital:

  1999–2000

  1,779

  2,157

  1,852

  2,658

  1,469

  1,383

  1,922

  13,220

  2000–01

  1,204

  1,372

  505

  2,792

  528

  994

  1,395

  8,790

  2001–02

  1,725

  1,618

  1,250

  1,173

  790

  798

  938

  8,292

  2002–031

  1,644

  1,518

  1,206

  1,816

  826

  1,204

  2,901

  11,115

  Total

  6,352

  6,665

  4,813

  8,439

  3,613

  4,379

  7,156

  41,417

  Maintenance:

  1999–2000

  3,590

  4,194

  4,644

  4,682

  5,787

  4,840

  6,215

  33,952

  2000–01

  3,041

  6,609

  4,116

  3,788

  4,893

  4,671

  5,811

  32,929

  2001–02

  3,246

  4,774

  3,423

  6,555

  3,365

  4,269

  4,979

  30,611

  2002–031

  3,300

  5,265

  3,915

  4,418

  4,434

  4,866

  4,375

  30,573

  Total

  13,177

  20,842

  16,098

  19,443

  18,479

  18,646

  21,380

  128,065

  Grants

  1999–2000

  514

  1,853

  761

  1,008

  294

  878

  3,638

  8,946

  2000–01

  839

  2,180

  1,083

  925

  520

  1,365

  3,860

  10,772

  2001–02

  652

  2,083

  1,130

  886

  280

  987

  4,210

  10,228

  2002–031

  982

  1,791

  821

  561

  324

  1,662

  3,496

  9,637

  Total

  2,987

  7,907

  3,795

  3,380

  1,418

  4,892

  15,204

  39,583

  Grand total

  22,516

  35,414

  24,706

  31,262

  23,510

  27,917

  43,740

  209,065

  (b)Urban renewal Newbuild:

  1999–2000

  114

  10

  596

  2,100

  106

  95

  29

  3,050

  2001–01

  73

  283

  301

  414

  131

  89

  99

  1,390

  2001–02

  73

  174

  96

  70

  356

  175

  21

  965

  2002–031

  28

  135

  30

  81

  236

  51

  14

  575

  Total

  288

  602

  1,023

  2,665

  829

  410

  163

  5,980

  Land and property spend:

  1999–2000

  1

  3,789

  678

  843

  1,893

  2,690

  227

  10,121

  2000–01

  5

  4,548

  390

  3,393

  6,613

  1,351

  42

  16,342

  2001–02

  3

  9,249

  132

  796

  4,471

  1,856

  1,059

  17,566

  2002–03'

  0

  2,737

  45

  2,182

  1,915

  1,834

  351

  9,064

  Total

  9

  20,323

  1,245

  7,214

  14,892

  7,731

  1,679

  53,093

  Grand total

  297

  20,925

  2,268

  9,879

  15,721

  8,141

  1,842

  59,073

  1 To 12 March 2003

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of(a) private sector providers of places for asylum seekers as at 31 December 2002, (b) the number of places with each provider, (c) the number of places in each
  816W
  12.0 per cent. Over the five-year period from autumn 1997 youth unemployment has decreased from 18,000 to 13,000 in autumn 2002.

  Urban Renewal
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been allocated for(a) housing improvements and (b) urban renewal areas in each Belfast constituency in each year since 1999.[103244]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, the following table gives the information by Northern Ireland Housing Executive district.

  parliamentary constituency and (d) the number of places from each provider in each parliamentary constituency. [102907]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: The information is not available in the precise format requested. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has entered into contracts with the private and public sector to provide accommodation for asylum seekers who are being dispersed. The private sector companies with whom NASS has entered into such

  817W
  contracts are as follows: Ade1phi Hotels; Angel Group; Accommodata Ltd; Capital Accommodation Ltd; Clearsprings; Landmark; Leena Homes and Roselodge.

  Details of individual contracts between NASS and its accommodation providers are confidential and I am unable to provide information on the number of bedspaces provided by each provider. NASS records of dispersal accommodation do not show the parliamentary constituency in which they are located.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 5 March 2003,Official Report, column 1076W, on asylum seekers, how many child asylum seekers were refused asylum in each year from 1997; what the most common reasons were for refusal; and how many were deported. [103401]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows initial decisions, made between 1997 and 2002, excluding appeals and other subsequent outcomes, made on asylum applications from applicants claiming to be aged under 18. These figures exclude dependants, and may overstate

  Applicants and decisions: Initial Decisions, excluding dependants, made on asylum applications in the United Kingdom, on applicants aged under 18 at the time of initial decision by year 1997 to 2002

  Refusals

  Total decisions

  Recognised as a as a refugee granted asylum

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exception leave

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration

  Refused on safe third country grounds

  Refused on non-compliance grounds

  19971,2

  600

  150

  250

  200

  150

  50

  50

  19981,2

  1,000

  400

  250

  350

  100

  50

  150

  19991,2

  1,350

  1,000

  200

  200

  100

  50

  50

  20001,2

  5,350

  500

  800

  4,000

  2,500

  50

  1,450

  20013,4

  8,895

  1,145

  4,815

  2,935

  1,550

  45

  1,340

  20023,4

  11,290

  970

  6,585

  3,735

  2,215

  90

  1,430

  1 Figures are an estimation. Estimated using pro-rata to publication from Raw Refugee index data.

  2 2 Estimated figures rounded to the nearest 50. These data are not compatible with data for 2001 and 2002.

  3 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  4 Provisional figures.

  Notes:

  1. Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in the given year.

  2. Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3. Data may overstate as some applicants over the age of 18 may claim to be younger

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were waiting for an initial decision for(a) less than two months, (b) two to six months, (c) six months to a year and (d) over a year at December (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [103421]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information is shown in the table. This information includes cases that are currently under consideration.

  Asylum cases awaiting an initial decision

  Number of months awaiting initial decision1

  As at end

  Less than 2

  2–6

  6–12

  More than 12

  Total cases outstanding1

  2000

  9,300

  12,000

  2—

  2—

  88,600

  20013

  5,400

  4,600

  2,600

  26,200

  38,800

  20023

  8,000

  4,300

  3,700

  24,800

  40,800

  1 Data have been estimated and are rounded to the nearest 100.

  2 Data are not available

  3 Data are provisional.

  818W
  since some applicants aged 18 or over may claim to be younger. The table contains estimates based on cases where information is available.

  The available data showing for the main categories for refusal are also given in the table. These data may overstate the number of children who were refused asylum and exceptional leave to remain. This is due to the inclusion of cases whereby the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) believe the applicant is aged over 18, therefore these applicants are treated as an age dispute case.

  Data on the age of those asylum seekers who were removed from the United Kingdom are not available except by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Information on asylum decisions is published annually in the statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library and from the RDS web site: http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Provisional data show that 60 per cent. of applications (excluding withdrawals and third country cases) received in 2001–02 had initial decisions reached and served within two months, 78 per cent. within four months and 84 per cent. within six months. 76 per cent. of applications (excluding withdrawals and third country cases) received in the period April to September 2002 had initial decisions reached and served within two months.

  Burglaries
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries were reported to the police in the(a) Greater London area and (b) England in the last year that figures are available; and how many of those have been resolved. [102233]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The number of burglary offences recorded and detected by the police for the 12 months to March 2002, are given in the table.
  819W

  Burglary offences

  Police force area

  Recorded

  Detected

  Greater London1

  116,498

  12,187

  England

  846,287

  100,634

  1 Metropolitan Police and City of London police force areas.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish his response to the criticism by UNGASS of the Government's proposed reclassification of cannabis. [102805]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Copies of my letter to Herr Herbert Schaepe, the Secretary to the International Narcotics Control Board, will be placed in the Library.

  Community Sentences
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, (b) Parenting Orders and (c) Curfew Orders have been issued in York in each of the last three years.[102644]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information is as follows:

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

  From 1 June 2000 official statistics on the number of ASBOs issued within England and Wales are based on quarterly returns from Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs). From copies of the orders we have been able to identify local authority areas involved. The number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued in York, from 1 June 2000 to 30 September 2002 (latest available) is six.

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

  (b) Youth Justice Board figures indicate that between April 2000 and December 2002 a total of eight Parenting Orders were imposed in York.

  (c) Figures from the electronic monitoring contractors indicate that six Curfew Orders with electronic monitoring were imposed in York during the period 2000 to 2002.

  No applications have yet been received to establish a local child curfew scheme under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Some local authorities and police forces have considered the possibility but concluded that other measures should be taken to tackle relevant local problems.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter dated 20 January 2003 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Mr. R. Edgar of Peterhead. [102388]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 13 March 2003]: I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  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 11 November 2002, ref 23338/2. [102933]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]I wrote to the hon. Member on 11 March 2003.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage clear-up rate for crimes in Wales was in each year since 1997. [102536]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The requested information is given in the following table.

  Percentage

  Detection rate

  19971

  41

  1997–982

  41

  1998–993

  46

  1999–20004

  40

  2000–014

  41

  2001–024,5

  39

  1 Recorded on a calendar year basis up to 1997, and then on a financial year basis thereafter.

  2 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the coverage and rules in use until 3 I March 1998.

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

  4 Revised detections guidance was implemented on 1 April 1999.

  5 Three out of the four police force areas in Wales (Dyfed Powys, North Wales and South Wales) adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) prior to its national introduction across England and Wales on 1 April 2002. This may have affected the detection rates given.

  There was a change in counting rules for detections on 1 April 1999. The new instructions provide more precise and rigorous criteria for recording a detection, with the underlying emphasis on the successful result of a police investigation. Numbers of detections before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the heads under which City of York Council received money to tackle crime in each year since 1997; and how much was received in each case. [102649]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The following table outlines the heads under which programme funding has been provided to the City of York Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership since 1997 to tackle crime and identifies the level of funding in each case.
  821W

  Funding provision

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Arrest Referral Scheme

  —

  13,221

  13,618

  13,958

  —

  Reducing Burglary Initiative1

  17,065

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Intervention Work in Schools1

  79,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CCTV1

  228,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership Development Fund

  —

  5,583

  52,000

  47,500

  —

  Communities Against Drugs

  —

  —

  163,800

  163,800

  —

  Safer Communities Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  59,484

  —

  Funding for Crime Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  230,888

  Basic Command Unit Fund2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  208,578

  Total

  324,065

  18,804

  229,418

  284,742

  439,466

  1 The total funding for these projects was allocated in 1999–2000 although the projects themselves may have lasted more than one year.

  2 The Basic Command Unit Fund will be provided to the Central region of North Yorkshire Police of which the City of York is a part. This funding is for use within the Partnership.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on crime committed by asylum applicants residing in the United Kingdom. [102923]

  Beverley Hughes
  We take very seriously any criminal or anti-social acts committed by asylum seekers. Although there is no evidence to suggest that asylum seekers are disproportionately likely to commit crime, we have taken powers in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to prevent serious criminals availing themselves of the protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention. We will seek to remove such criminals from the United Kingdom wherever possible.

  Offenders found guilty at all courts or cautioned ('known offenders') in Essex, by offence group

  Offence group

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Violence Against The Person

  1,206

  1,072

  983

  825

  859

  Sexual Offences

  164

  154

  123

  119

  81

  Burglary

  821

  762

  731

  614

  554

  Robbery

  69

  92

  93

  94

  81

  Theft and Handling Stolen Goods

  5,163

  4,987

  4,447

  4,085

  4,221

  Fraud and Forgery

  581

  569

  551

  494

  504

  Criminal Damage

  604

  414

  378

  323

  858

  Drug Offences

  2,158

  2,173

  2,038

  1,702

  1,588

  Other Indictable Non-Motoring

  978

  1,094

  862

  829

  755

  Indictable Motoring Offences1

  265

  264

  202

  188

  209

  Total Indictable Offences

  12,009

  11,581

  10,408

  9,273

  9,710

  Summary Non-Motoring Offences

  16,302

  18,951

  17,980

  18,368

  14,137

  Summary Motoring Offences1

  19,489

  19,152

  20,525

  19,931

  21,979

  Total summary offences

  35,791

  38,103

  38,505

  38,299

  36,116

  Total all offences

  47,800

  49,684

  48,913

  47,572

  45,826

  1 Offenders found guilty only; motoring offences may attract written warnings.

  Mr. Andrew Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers residing in the UK have been prosecuted for(a) sexual crime, (b) violent crime, (c) robbery and (d) other criminal offences in each year from 1997 to 2003; and what the total cost to public funds has been of such prosecutions. [02922]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his statement of 27 February 2003,Official Report, columns 32–36WS,
  822W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were recorded in(a) the Chelmsford division of Essex police and (b) Essex in each year since 1997, broken down by category. [103120]

  Hilary Benn
  It is not possible, from the information collected centrally, to separately identify offenders convicted or cautioned in the Essex police division of Chelmsford. The table gives offenders found guilty at all courts or cautioned ('known offenders') in Essex for the years 1997 to 2001 by offence group.

  Figures for 2002 will be published in the autumn.

  on the Criminal Records Bureau, what steps his Department is taking to moderate public expectations of the role of the Criminal Records Bureau. [101390]

  Hilary Benn
  The Summary Independent Review Team report placed in the Library on 27 February 2003 contains the statement "we are concerned that public expectations are possibly unreasonably high and that there needs to be a clear recognition that the (Disclosure) process cannot provide complete security".

  The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has worked with the National Association of Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development to produce two publications 'Recruiting Safely' and 'Employing People

  823W
  With Conviction'. These are available to customers and are issued to all organisations registering with the CRB to gain access to Standard and Enhanced Disclosures and are also available on request from the CRB website. These publications are aimed at employers and volunteering organisations that wish to use criminal record information as part of their recruitment process. Both publications set the Disclosure service into context and demonstrate that if used it should be as part of a wider range of pre-employment checks.

  This message will continue to be given out to our customers and the general public when the CRB attends exhibitions, conferences and speaking engagements, and makes customer visits, as well as in CRB newsletters and publications.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have made applications for clearance by the Criminal Records Bureau on more than one occasion since it was formed; and what proportion of these have resulted in an applicant being charged more than one fee for the service. [101602]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no facility available at present to extract from the Criminal Records Bureau's (CRB) database the number of people who have applied for more than one Disclosure or how many times they have been charged. Under the legislation a fee is due for each fresh application for a Disclosure.

  Prospective employees may be requested to apply for Disclosure for each position they have applied for. The CRB has issued portability guidance for Disclosures to the Registered Bodies, and encourages them to avoid unnecessary additional Disclosure applications for the same individual. However, the decision on accepting a previous Disclosure rests with the individual Registered Body.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many referrals have been received by the Criminal Records Bureau since its inception; how many of those referrals have been completed and responded to; how many are pending; and how many the bureau was unable to fulfil; [101603]

  (2) what proportion of applicants for clearance by the Criminal Records Bureau from within the teaching profession have not yet received their Disclosure certificates. [101601]

  Hilary Benn
  Since 11 March when the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) launched its Disclosure service, the Bureau has received 1,388,896 applications for Disclosure, of which 1,267,561 have been issued. 50,000 of the remaining applications are currently outside our three-week service standard. This figure has reduced from its peak of 109,000 during the summer of 2002 as a direct consequence of the targeted work that is being done to clear the oldest applications from the system.

  For the last four months the CRB has issued, on average more Disclosures out each week than it has received applications for, thereby reducing the number of outstanding cases. The CRB is issuing on average around 42,000 Disclosures per week, which is well over double the weekly output issued by the police under the previous arrangements. The CRB fulfil all Disclosures
  824W
  that are processed through the system. In some cases, forms are returned to the Registered Body or the applicant because the form is incomplete and cannot be processed. The information sought by the hon. Member regarding the proportion of applicants from within the teaching profession who have not received their Disclosure is not available in the format requested. There are no IT procedures at present to extract these data from the CRB database. It is expected that this functionality will become available in subsequent system releases. No distinction is made in relation to the profession of an applicant. They are all subject to the same level of service.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the Criminal Records Bureau has supplied inaccurate information about an individual; on how many occasions the supply of inaccurate information resulted in(a) the denial of a job to that individual and (b) the offer of a job to an individual who would normally be disbarred from taking that job; and if he will make a statement. [101790]

  Hilary Benn
  Up to and including the end of February 2003 there have been 400 instances where applicant details supplied by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) to the police has led to mistakenly matching conviction details with an applicant. This represents 0.03 per cent. of all Disclosures issued, a total that currently stands at 1,269,367.

  The decision on whether an applicant is suitable to take up a position following a Disclosure rests solely with the employer. It is therefore not possible to provide an answer regarding the employment of people following a Disclosure. However, the CRB does have procedures in place for applicants to dispute the information provided on their Disclosure. If upon investigation the CRB finds that the conviction does not relate to the person for whom the Disclosure was issued they will re-issue a corrected Disclosure free of charge. Prior to the CRB operation, had an applicant applied for a position which was police checked under the previous arrangements, details of any alleged convictions would have been passed only to the prospective employer and not to the applicant. That prospective employer would have had no obligation to pass on the contents to the applicant, who could have been oblivious of the facts. As it is, applicants now have the opportunity to dispute any conviction details.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the type of disclosure needed from the Criminal Records Bureau for members of the clergy and other religious bodies. [102522]

  Hilary Benn
  As with other types of position, the level of disclosure for which an applicant would be eligible would depend upon the particular duties. But a position which entailed regularly caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of persons under the age of 18, or of vulnerable adults (as defined), would be eligible for the highest level of disclosure, Enhanced.

  Drug Treatment (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been made available for the rehabilitation of drug offenders in Essex in each year since 1997. [103119]

  Hilary Benn
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The pooled treatment budget, introduced in 2001–02 provides funding for the treatment and rehabilitation of people with drug problems, including offenders. Drug Action Teams (DAT) use their pooled treatment budget allocations, together with additional resources from health authorities and other sources to fund treatment provision in their areas.

  There are three drug action teams covering Essex: Southend, Thurrock and Essex, which covers the remainder of the county. The level of pooled treatment budget funding allocated to the three Essex DATs in 2001–02 was £4.056 million. This figure increased in 2002–03 to £5.306 million.

  In 2003–04, the pooled treatment allocation for the three Essex DATs will increase to £5.579 million.

  Firearms
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents of gun-related crime were recorded in(a)Lancashire, (b) the North West of England, (c) England, (d) Wales and (e) the UK in each year since 1997; [90965]

  (2) how many people have been (a) injured and (b) killed by guns in (i) Lancashire and (ii) the North West of England in (a) 2002 and (b) each of the previous five years. [90977]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Available published data on the number of recorded homicide offences in which firearms were reported to have been used are given in the table.

  Number of homicide offences involving firearms

  Lancashire

  North West of England

  1997

  1

  11

  1998–99

  1

  5

  1999–2000

  2

  14

  2000–01

  2

  15

  Note

  Figures for injuries are not available.

  The total number of recorded crimes in which firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used are given in the table.

  Lancashire

  North West of England

  England

  Wales

  1997

  163

  1,751

  11,816

  594

  1998–99

  179

  2,308

  13,283

  591

  1999–2000

  227

  2,619

  16,234

  712

  2000–01

  233

  2,983

  17,083

  614

  826W
  These firearms offences were published on a calendar year basis up to 1997, and on a financial year basis thereafter. The figures for the North West and England for 2000–01 have been slightly revised since they were published.

  There was a change of counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998. Numbers of recorded crimes before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable. Similarly, some police forces adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in advance of its national implementation; for example, Lancashire did so in 2000–01. This will mean that the figures for 2000–01 for Lancashire, the North West and England in the above table will not be directly comparable with the previous year. Both of these changes in recorded crime will have the effect of increasing the number of crimes counted.

  Information relating to Scotland Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland (Helen Liddell) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Paul Murphy).

  Operation Street Cred
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 186W, on Operation Street Cred, if he will make a statement on the timescale of review of Operation Street Cred in Wirral. [102687]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Further to my right hon. Friend's (John Denham) answer to my right hon. Friend of 20 January 2002,Official Report, column 180W. I am advised by Merseyside police that they have now completed their formal review of Operation Street Cred which shows that it is proving a success. There has been a 16 per cent. decline in youth disorder over the past six months and of the 700 young people who came to the notice of the police for anti-social behaviour only 20 came to notice for a second time and only one for a third time. The Street Cred database will also provide useful information to local agencies dealing with anti-social behaviour and will ensure that young people can be dealt with in the most effective and appropriate way for their own good and that of the community.

  Parenting Orders
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parenting orders were issued by each local authority in 2001–02. [103397]

  Hilary Benn
  Figures for Parenting Orders are collected by Youth Offending Teams and are not available by Local Authority area. The table provides details of the 1,216 Parenting Orders made during the year from April 2001 by Youth Offending Team area in descending order. Parenting Orders made April 2001/ March 2002.
  827W

  Parenting Orders made April 2001-March 2002

  Youth offending team

  Parenting orders

  Wigan

  146

  Wessex

  103

  Leicester City

  46

  Stockton-on-Tees

  41

  Suffolk

  36

  Gateshead

  33

  Sunderland

  33

  Kent

  29

  Norfolk

  29

  Hertfordshire

  24

  Southend-on-Sea

  22

  Peterborough

  21

  Vale of Glamorgan

  18

  Sandwell

  17

  Wandsworth

  17

  Kirklees

  16

  East Sussex

  16

  Shropshire and Telford/Wrekin

  15

  Lancashire

  15

  South Tyneside

  15

  Somerset

  14

  Bolton

  13

  Lambeth

  13

  Bedfordshire

  13

  Newham

  12

  Wolverhampton

  11

  Gwynedd and Mon

  11

  Southwark

  11

  Sutton

  11

  Birmingham

  10

  West Sussex

  10

  Rochdale

  10

  Hillingdon

  10

  Barnsley

  9

  Bradford and District

  9

  Calderdale

  9

  Stockport

  9

  Trafford

  9

  Durham County

  9

  Barking and Dagenham

  9

  Croydon

  9

  Lewisham

  9

  Richmond Upon Thames

  9

  Thurrock

  9

  Sheffield

  8

  Pembrokeshire

  8

  Dorset

  8

  St. Helens

  8

  Essex

  8

  Stoke on Trent

  7

  Buckinghamshire

  7

  Darlington

  7

  Barnet

  7

  Ealing

  7

  Greenwich

  7

  Derbyshire

  7

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  6

  Worcestershire and Herefordshire

  6

  Torfaen and Monmouthshire

  6

  West Berkshire

  6

  Oldham

  6

  Wakefield

  5

  Staffordshire

  5

  Wrexham

  5

  Medway

  5

  Blackpool

  5

  Kingston

  5

  Nottingham City

  5

  Caerphilly and Blaenau Gwent

  4

  Flintshire and Wrexham

  4

  Cornwall

  4

  Slough

  4

  Cumbria

  4

  828W

  Parenting Orders made April 2001-March 2002

  Youth offending team

  Parenting orders

  Bromley

  4

  City of Westminster

  4

  Redbridge

  4

  Waltham Forest

  4

  Leicestershire

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  Solihull

  3

  Flintshire

  3

  Swindon

  3

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  3

  Bury

  3

  Knowsley

  3

  North Tyneside

  3

  South Tees

  3

  Bexley

  3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3

  Havering

  3

  Merton

  3

  York

  2

  Coventry

  2

  Walsall

  2

  Conwy and Denbighshire

  2

  Bristol

  2

  Milton Keynes

  2

  Manchester

  2

  Enfield

  2

  Lincolnshire

  2

  Luton

  2

  Kingston Upon Hull

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1

  Bridgend

  1

  Cardiff

  1

  Carmarthenshire

  1

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1

  Mid Wales (Powys and Ceredigion)

  1

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1

  Bournemouth and Poole

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Plymouth

  1

  Brighton and Hove

  1

  Surrey

  Cheshire

  1

  Salford

  1

  Tameside

  1

  Wirral

  1

  Hartlepool

  1

  Northumberland

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Derby City

  1

  North Lincolnshire

  1

  Blackburn with Darwen

  0

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  Brent

  0

  Camden

  0

  Devon

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  Dudley

  0

  Hackney

  0

  Halton and Warrington

  0

  Haringey

  0

  Harrow

  0

  Hounslow

  0

  Islington

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  Leeds

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  Neath Port Talbot

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  Newport

  0

  North East Lincolnshire

  0

  North Somerset

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  829W

  Parenting Orders made April 2001-March 2002

  Youth offending team

  Parenting orders

  Reading and Wokingham

  0

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  Sefton

  0

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  Swansea

  0

  Torbay

  0

  Tower Hamlets and City of London

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  Police (North Yorkshire)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many uniformed police officers North Yorkshire police employed in(a)1991, (b)1997 and (c)2002. [102645]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information about the number of uniformed police officers is not collected centrally. Total police officer and civilian support staff strength figures for North Yorkshire are given in the following table. The force had a record number of officers at 31 March

  North Yorkshire police

  Police officer strength

  Civilian support staff

  31 March 1991

  1,387

  449

  31 March 1997

  1,338

  519

  31 March 2002

  1,417

  743

  Source

  Home Office Statistical Bulletins—Police Service Strength—1997 to 2002 and historical data.

  By 31 March 2002, total police service strength in England and Wales 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.

  Under the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruitment initiative North Yorkshire police were allocated 68 recruits over and above the force's previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003. In 2003–04, in addition to funding for the continuing cost of these

  Number of Asian/Asian British police

  Forces

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Avon and Somerset

  6

  7

  7

  7

  6

  Bedfordshire

  16

  15

  15

  14

  23

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  4

  6

  5

  7

  Cheshire

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  City of London

  0

  5

  5

  5

  7

  Cleveland

  13

  15

  13

  13

  14

  Cumbria

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  Derbyshire

  21

  20

  25

  27

  29

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Dorset

  1

  3

  1

  0

  3

  Durham

  4

  5

  5

  5

  6

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  1

  3

  3

  2

  Essex

  9

  10

  7

  5

  3

  Gloucestershire

  7

  0

  2

  6

  2

  Great Manchester

  60

  58

  61

  63

  70

  Gwent

  0

  0

  0

  1

  11

  Hampshire

  12

  12

  14

  18

  15

  Hertfordshire

  5

  5

  12

  13

  12

  830W
  recruits, a further £23,000 will be available to the force from the Crime Fighting Fund. We estimate that this will allow a strength increase of up to four officers by the end of 2003–04.

  Police Officers (Shootings)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were(a) shot at, (b) injured by shootings and (c) killed by shootings in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [103023]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Available published figures on the number of recorded crimes by the police in which a police officer on duty was injured by a firearm, are given in the table. Figures for the last five years are recorded on a financial year basis.

  Fatal injury

  Injuries

  1997–98

  —

  6

  1998–99

  —

  11

  1999–2000

  —

  10

  2000–01

  —

  8

  2001–02

  —

  10

  1. Details of officers shot at are not available.

  2. The figures given in the table may not include only shootings, but injuries due to use of a firearm as a blunt instrument.

  3. Figures for firearm crime for 2000–01 have been updated owing to discrepancies discovered when the figures for the number of non-air weapon offences for 2000–01 and 2001–02 by police force area were forwarded to the police.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from the Indian community were recruited into each police force in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [103507]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information is not available in the format requested. Figures collated by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary break down ethnicity by Asian/Asian British categorisation only and relate to officer strength rather than recruits.

  The following table shows the number of these officers in each force at 31 March during the last five years.
  831W

  Number of Asian/Asian British police

  Forces

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Humberside

  6

  3

  6

  3

  4

  Kent

  14

  5

  17

  18

  18

  Lancashire

  22

  19

  21

  27

  32

  Leicestershire

  45

  45

  46

  43

  50

  Lincolnshire

  2

  1

  3

  4

  5

  Merseyside

  27

  28

  12

  9

  13

  Metropolitan Police

  166

  193

  167

  215

  384

  Norfolk

  3

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Northamptonshire

  8

  10

  7

  7

  7

  Northumbria

  4

  4

  11

  11

  15

  North Wales

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  North Yorkshire

  4

  3

  3

  4

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  22

  22

  23

  25

  24

  South Wales

  9

  9

  9

  12

  10

  South Yorkshire

  31

  36

  34

  39

  38

  Staffordshire

  8

  9

  8

  7

  8

  Suffolk

  6

  6

  5

  5

  2

  Surrey

  9

  8

  10

  11

  9

  Sussex

  4

  3

  4

  4

  2

  Thames Valley

  28

  30

  29

  33

  36

  Warwickshire

  19

  18

  15

  20

  21

  West Mercia

  9

  8

  9

  10

  7

  West Midlands

  123

  131

  142

  176

  170

  West Yorkshire

  64

  66

  66

  75

  89

  Wiltshire

  2

  1

  2

  3

  4

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of offenders under supervision per probation officer was in each probation area in each of the last five years. [102451]

  Hilary Benn
  The average number of offenders under court order supervision per maingrade probation officer as at 31 December in each of the last five years is given in the table.

  Since 1998 there have been significant changes in the way in which the services of the National Probation Service (NPS) have been delivered, with increasing

  Average caseload1 of criminal court orders per maingrade officer in post at 31 December

  England and Wales

  Cases per officer

  Areas2

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Avon2

  22.3

  24.4

  25.2

  17.6

  —

  Somerset2

  16.6

  15.6

  15.0

  14.8

  —

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15.8

  Bedfordshire

  15.1

  17.2

  15.9

  14.2

  17.8

  Cambridgeshire

  14.2

  15.8

  15.8

  13.3

  17.8

  Cheshire

  18.6

  19.9

  19.3

  18.3

  15.9

  Cumbria

  14.9

  17.2

  21.5

  19.8

  21.3

  Derbyshire

  21.4

  22.7

  24.5

  23.0

  20.6

  Devon2

  17.4

  18.6

  18.8

  19.2

  —

  Cornwall2

  20.2

  17.9

  16.4

  14.2

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.1

  Dorset

  17.2

  23.1

  17.6

  20.3

  24.1

  Durham

  21.2

  20.9

  22.1

  21.5

  25.1

  Essex

  16.1

  19.9

  22.3

  19.4

  23.6

  Gloucestershire

  16.7

  17.3

  17.0

  16.8

  15.5

  Hampshire

  16.6

  20.8

  24.9

  20.3

  21.2

  Hereford and Worcester2

  11.7

  13.0

  13.9

  14.7

  —

  Shropshire2

  15.8

  17.5

  15.4

  12.5

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16.3

  Hertfordshire

  15.9

  17.5

  16.7

  18.5

  21.4

  Humberside

  16.9

  20.0

  18.9

  17.3

  14.3

  Kent

  16.3

  17.4

  15.4

  15.7

  21.9

  832W
  growth in the use of probation service officers (PSOs) and trainee probation officers to support the work of the trained probation officer. Both the numbers of PSOs and trainees have increased significantly in the last few years, meaning that there has been a significant increase (20.09 per cent.) overall in the numbers of probation staff with direct responsibility for the supervision of offenders. While the figures published in Probation Statistics may reflect the average numbers of offenders who are assigned to each probation officer, they do not accurately reflect the supervision work delivered by the Probation Service for offenders. I will arrange for a short briefing note prepared by the National Probation Directorate (NPD) which explains this situation more fully to be placed in the Library.
  833W

  Average caseload1 of criminal court orders per maingrade officer in post at 31 December

  England and Wales

  Cases per officer

  Areas2

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Lancashire

  19.2

  20.2

  18.3

  17.1

  16.4

  Leicestershire

  15.7

  17.9

  17.0

  15.8

  15.9

  Lincolnshire

  14.3

  16.5

  20.2

  15.1

  16.2

  Greater Manchester

  18.0

  22.3

  26.2

  27.2

  23.7

  Merseyside

  15.9

  18.0

  18.3

  17.6

  20.1

  Norfolk

  13.6

  15.8

  14.1

  14.4

  15.6

  Northamptonshire

  12.4

  16.9

  18.0

  13.5

  21.4

  Northumbria

  15.5

  17.7

  17.7

  16.1

  18.0

  Nottinghamshire

  17.7

  18.9

  21.1

  19.5

  20.9

  Oxford and Buckingham2

  14.8

  16.9

  16.5

  15.2

  —

  Berkshire2

  19.5

  18.2

  19.5

  17.8

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.0

  Staffordshire

  16.7

  16.5

  17.1

  15.8

  17.1

  Suffolk

  12.8

  14.0

  14.8

  12.8

  13.6

  Surrey

  15.0

  16.6

  20.5

  18.0

  19.7

  East Sussex2

  14.5

  15.4

  14.8

  13.5

  —

  West Sussex2

  16.8

  17.5

  17.3

  13.7

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16.2

  Teesside

  21.6

  24.1

  30.6

  30.5

  44.8

  Warwickshire

  15.3

  12.9

  15.8

  17.2

  16.2

  West Midlands

  17.7

  19.5

  18.8

  18.9

  22.8

  Wiltshire

  16.9

  19.8

  17.2

  17.3

  21.7

  North Yorkshire

  25.0

  17.2

  20.5

  16.5

  14.7

  South Yorkshire

  18.4

  19.3

  19.4

  17.2

  19.1

  West Yorkshire

  17.6

  17.8

  19.0

  15.7

  15.5

  Inner London2

  17.1

  17.4

  16.3

  15.8

  —

  NE London2

  14.6

  18.6

  19.4

  20.4

  —

  SE London2

  15.4

  14.1

  12.6

  11.0

  —

  SW London2

  14.4

  13.5

  11.9

  11.4

  —

  Middlesex2

  15.3

  18.4

  17.9

  16.3

  —

  London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.6

  Dyfed2

  28.3

  24.2

  25.6

  24.8

  —

  Powys2

  24.4

  35.7

  28.3

  19.0

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18.2

  Gwent

  18.5

  16.5

  19.7

  17.7

  18.9

  North Wales

  16.2

  18.5

  23.4

  20.1

  22.2

  South Glamorgan2

  14.1

  17.6

  18.1

  15.7

  —

  Mid Glamorgan2

  19.3

  17.4

  18.3

  21.0

  —

  West Glamorgan2

  1.6.9

  18.2

  17.8

  14.1

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16.8

  All areas

  16.9

  18.5

  19.0

  17.7

  19.0

  1 Excludes community punishment orders and drug treatment and testing orders. Includes cases supervised by staff other than maingrade officers.

  2 Under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, the following probation areas were amalgamated on 1 April 2001: Devon and Cornwall merged; Avon and Somerset merged; Hereford and Worcester and Shropshire became West Mercia; Oxford and Buckinghamshire and Berkshire became Thames Valley; Dyfed and Powys merged; East and West Sussex became Sussex; Mid, South and West Glamorgan became South Wales; and Inner, North East, South East and South West London merged with Middlesex to become London.

  Sexual Offences Bill
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of the Sexual Offences Bill for(a) naturists and (b) those who (i) work as nude models and (ii) paint and draw nudes. [102437]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 12 March 2003]We neither expect nor intend the proposals in the Bill to have any impact on naturists, or those who work as nude models or who paint and draw nudes.

  Clause 70 of the Sexual Offences Bill proposes to make it an offence for someone to expose their genitals knowing or intending that someone will see them and knowing, intending or, in certain circumstances, being reckless as to whether the person seeing them will be caused alarm or distress. People who are "flashed" at in
  834W
  the street often find this a disturbing experience. It follows that anyone who wishes to be naked in situations where others will see them must continue to give careful consideration as to the effect that might have on those others.

  The Bill is not intended to restrict the normal leisure activities of naturists who are exercising their preference for being naked among others who feel the same. Exposure will only be an offence where the person knows or intends that a person who sees his or her genitals will be caused alarm or distress or where he or she foresees a risk that such a person will be caused alarm or distress and acts unreasonably in running that risk. We do not expect the introduction of the exposure offence to have any impact on the way in which nudity in public is currently regulated by the police.
  835W
  Similarly, the exposure offence will not affect models who are invited to pose naked for an art class because such models will not have the criminal state of mind in relation to causing others alarm or distress.

  As for people in an art class who paint or draw nudes, the Bill will have no impact on them either as they will not be committing any offence. Although the Bill does introduce an offence of voyeurism at clause 71, for such observation to be an offence, it must be done for sexual gratification, while the other person is within a structure which would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and without that other person's consent. None of these factors will be present where an artist is openly painting a nude model who is posing for that artist.

  Sikhs
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make it unlawful to require Sikhs to remove the kirpan when entering public places. [103035]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans to introduce new legislation in this area. Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which makes it an offence to have an article with blade or point in a public place, provides that should a person possess such an article for "religious reasons or as part of any national costume" he would not be guilty of an offence under the Act. This does not provide a licence for anyone to use kirpans for unlawful purposes and any person carrying such an article for the purpose of religious observance or national costume must be able to satisfy the police, and ultimately the courts, on this count.

  Small Charities
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision will be made on whether to exempt small charities, with an annual income under £10,000 per annum, from current legislation with regard to charitable file status. [102407]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Strategy Unit's recent review of charity law and regulation ("Private Action, Public Benefit") included a proposal to change the registration rules for small charities.

  The proposal would mean that no small charity with an annual income under £10,000 would be required or allowed to register with the Charity Commission. But the proposal would not take away any small charity's charitable status or its right to receive tax reliefs due to charities.

  The Strategy Unit's review was put out for public consultation late last year. My officials are part way through the process of analysing responses to the consultation. Once that process is complete Ministers
  836W
  will consider whether or not to include the proposal on small charities registration in a draft Charities Bill. We are hoping to make an announcement in the summer.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the subject of exempting small charities from charitable status legislation; and how many were(a) for and (b) against. [102408]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Strategy Unit's recent review of charity law and regulation ("Private Action, Public Benefit") included a proposal to change the registration rules for small charities. The review was put out for open public consultation late last year.

  There have been more than 1,100 written responses to the consultation. My officials are part way through the process of carefully analysing these responses. It will be possible accurately to judge the overall level of support or opposition to each proposal only when this process has been completed.

  In accordance with the Cabinet Office's Code of Practice on written consultations the Government will in due course be publishing a summary of the views expressed by respondents on each proposal. We are hoping to make an announcement in the summer.

  Special Branch
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, column 780W, whether the figure for Special Branch officers includes the Metropolitan Police Special Branch. [103833]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Yes.

  Weapons
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many weapons were seized by authorities as they entered the UK in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002.[96905]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The requested information is not collected centrally by the Home Office. For the number of firearms seized by Customs and Excise in the last two financial years, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on 30 January 2003,Official Report, column 1002W.

  Women Prisoners
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have taken place in the(a) numbers and (b) percentages of women sentenced to prison in each of the last 10 years. [102856]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is contained in the table.
  837W

  Females sentenced to immediate custody and as a proportion of all females sentenced. England and Wales

  Females aged 10–20 sentenced to immediate custody

  Females aged 21+ sentenced to immediate custody

  Total females sentenced to immediate custody

  Total females sentenced

  Proportion sentenced to custody (Percentage)

  1992

  363

  1,974

  2,337

  258,977

  0.9

  1993

  459

  2,079

  2,538

  251,014

  1.0

  1994

  531

  2,637

  3,168

  250,976

  1.3

  1995

  643

  3,149

  3,792

  217,953

  1.7

  1996

  769

  3,634

  4,403

  260,960

  1.7

  1997

  950

  4,556

  5,506

  216,986

  2.5

  1998

  1,187

  5,380

  6,567

  235,494

  2.8

  1999

  1,372

  6,132

  7,504

  220,007

  3.4

  2000

  1,563

  6,337

  7,900

  256,090

  3.1

  2001

  1,515

  6,546

  8,061

  237,497

  3.4

  Figures for 2002 are not yet available.

  Work Permits
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 309W0, on work permits, what discussions Work Permits (UK) had with the Department of Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland on the application for a group work permit for lap dancers for the Movie Star Cafè in summer 2002; and if he will make a statement. [103641]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: Work Permits (UK) did not have any discussions with the Department of Education and Learning and were not consulted by the Department on the applications for a group work permit for lap dancers for the Movie Star Cafè.

HEALTH

  NHS Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether(a) strategic health authorities and (b) primary care trusts will be able to guarantee the borrowing of NHS foundation trusts. [102581]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill makes no provision requiring the Secretary of State, strategic health authorities or primary care trusts to guarantee the borrowing of National Health Service foundation trusts. The regime we intend to put in place for managing financial failure will ensure that NHS patients continue to have access to the healthcare they need, free at the point of delivery. The regime will not underwrite institutions that have failed to deliver under the terms of their service agreements and/ or licence.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS foundation trusts will be able to use(a) regulated assets and (b) unregulated assets as security for their borrowing. [102582]

  Mr. Hutton
  Provisions in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will prevent National Health Service foundation trusts from using assets protected under the Bill as security for borrowing.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the prudential code setting out the basis for determining the serviceability of the debt levels 838W
  requested by NHS foundation trusts will be placed in the public domain; and when the prudential code will be issued. [102583]

  Mr. Hutton
  Provision for making and issuing the prudential code is set out in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. Subject to parliamentary approval, the code will be published by the independent regulator and laid before Parliament during the application period for first wave National Health Service foundation trusts.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what limits the independent regulator may place on the borrowing of NHS foundation trusts. [102589]

  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service foundation trusts will have complete freedom to access capital, subject to two principal constraints imposed on them by the independent regulator:their prudential borrowing limit agreed with the independent regulator
  prohibition on use of protected assets as security for borrowing

  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill sets out the proposed provisions for the independent regulator to place limits on the borrowing of NHS foundation trusts.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to relax the borrowing limits placed on NHS foundation trusts as the number of NHS foundation trusts increases. [102585]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Secretary of State will not have the power to set or relax the prudential borrowing limits. The regulator will set the prudential code in consultation with Secretary of State, every national health service trust making an application for NHS foundation trust status and other persons that the regulator deems appropriate. In making the code the regulator is to have regard, among other things, to any generally accepted principles used by financial institutions to determine the amounts of loans to nonprofit making organisations.

  The NHS foundation trust will submit an application for a prudential borrowing limit to the independent regulator, consistent with the prudential code. The regulator will then confirm that the limit applied for is consistent with the guidelines set out in the code.
  839W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the launch of NHS initiatives since May 1997 and the cost of each launch. [102088]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department makes announcements on a regular basis about the development of Government policy. We do not cost each announcement separately because they are part of the Department's mainstream communications activity.

  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of providing photodynamic therapy to(a) all patients for whom it is considered clinically appropriate who are suffering from classic wet age-related macular degeneration and (b) all patients for whom it is considered clinically appropriate who are suffering from either classic wet age-related macular degeneration or predominantly classic wet age-related macular degeneration; [103188]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the time taken by NICE to carry out an appraisal of photodynamic therapy as a treatment for age-related macular degeneration; [103189]

  (3) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), of 27 February 2003, Official Report, columns 698–9W, on age-related macular degeneration, when his Department first asked NICE to carry out an appraisal of photodynamic therapy; and when he expects NICE to publish its final guidance. [103191]

  Department of Health: Awards/Recognition Schemes

  Scheme

  Purpose

  Scope

  Sponsers/administrators

  Healthcare IT Effectiveness Award

  To recognise excellence in healthcare information management

  Includes: Best use of IT in any healthcare sector. Best use of IT in laboratory or investigative systems. Best example of technological innovation. Best publicly accessible health related information system. Best use of IT in the Health

  Department of Health NHS Information Authority British Journal of Healthcare Computing Health Informatics Committee of the British Computer Society Intellect (formerly CSSA and FEI)

  Health and Social Care Awards

  To recognise the achievements of individuals and teams across health, social care and the voluntary sector

  2001/2002 categories for the following services to: Cancer Children's Health Children's Social Care Coronary Heart Disease Disabled Emergency Care Mental Health Older people Primary Care Improving working lives Waiting times

  Department of Health Modernisation Agency

  FNHS Beacons

  To recognise individual services as exemplar sites of best practice across key priority areas

  Applications for Beacons status are invited at regular intervals, in line with national priorities and objectives

  Department of Health Modernisation Agency

  The Mary Seacole Award

  To recognise individuals who best reflect the excellent example set by Mary Seacole and emphasise her pioneering role in leadership

  Bursary to fund a research and development project relating to the health service needs of black and minority ethnic communities

  Department of Health Royal College of Nursing Community Practitioners and Health Visitors' Association Royal College of Midwifery UNISON

  840W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: Photodynamic therapy was referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on 12 March 2001. NICE has not yet published any guidance to the national health service on this topic. Appeals were lodged, in response to the final appraisal determination issued on 16 January, which were considered at an appeal hearing on 17 March. The final date of publication will depend on the outcome of the appeal hearing.

  NICE is best placed to give authoritative guidance to the NHS, including guidance on the patients for whom the treatment may be appropriate. Until this guidance is available it is not possible to estimate what the cost of providing this treatment for clinically appropriate patients will be.

  Once guidance has been published, NHS bodies are obliged to make the necessary funding available so that patients can receive treatments recommended by NICE, if recommended by the clinician.

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list she award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the 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. [102053]

  Mr. Lammy
  The awards schemes promoted by the Department in 2001–02 are shown in the table. Results of each of these schemes have been announced and are in the public domain.
  841W

  Department of Health: Awards/Recognition Schemes

  Scheme

  Purpose

  Scope

  Sponsers/administrators

  National Health Action Zone Fellowships

  Fellowships awarded to individuals to enable them to research and test new ideas in order to improve services

  Fellowships cover a diverse range of topics—all of which underpin the Health inequalities and social inclusion agenda

  Department of Health

  Association of Healthcare Human Resource Managements Excellence in HR management

  To promote and develop effective HR Management throughout the NHS

  Aim is to draw out examples of excellence in HR practice in the NHS through wider publicity, learning and formal recognition

  Department of Health (sponsorship ceased in 2001)

  Care Homes
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards are in place to ensure that residential homes which de-register from the National Care Standards Commission are adequately inspected by an independent body. [100680]

  Jacqui Smith
  If a home de-registers or is de-registered, the National Care Standards Commission would liaise with appropriate local authorities, such as social services, to ensure that the needs of the service users continued to be met and that any existing risk elements were removed. This could mean arranging for a new provider to take over the premises or helping gradually move the residents to ether premises where their safety and well-being could be assured.

  If the owners of former care homes subsequently operate as a domiciliary care agency by providing personal care to individuals, who then live in their own homes, the domiciliary care regulations would have to be complied with.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to increase residential care home provision in the London borough of Havering; [99747]

  (2) if he will list the total amount spent on residential care home provision in the London borough of Havering in each year from 1990; and how much will be spent in 2003; [99746]

  (3) if he will make a statement on residential care home provision in the London borough of Havering. [99748]

  Jacqui Smith
  The gross expenditure in Havering on residential services for all client groups is shown in the table.

  £000

  Year

  Gross expenditure on residential services in the London borough of Havering

  1993–94

  10,628

  1994–95

  12,976

  1995–96

  14,679

  1996–97

  16,878

  1997–98

  18,976

  1998–99

  19,613

  1999–2000

  20,542

  2000–01

  23,005

  2001–02

  25,799

  Figures prior to 1993–94 are not available.

  There have been substantial increases in the level of funding provided for social services in recent years. Between 1996–97 and 2002–03, the overall level of
  842W
  funding for social services has increased by 20 per cent., an average real terms annual increase of around 3 per cent. As announced on 17 April 2002 by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we intend to further increase resources to social services for personal social services by an annual average six per cent, in real terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  The London borough of Havering's personal social services standard spending assessment increased by 5.2 per cent., in 2002–03, compared to a national average increase of 4.9 per cent. The total building care capacity grant allocated to the borough in 2002–03 was £1,173,000. Of this total, £596,000 was spent on residential care.

  In March 1997, there were 1,150 residential care home places in the London borough of Havering. The latest data for March 2001 show that figure has changed to 1,080 places, a decrease of 0.6 per cent.

  I understand that the council has plans to increase the numbers of people placed in residential care by a total of 20 placements in the current financial year.

  Childbirth
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) mothers and (b) babies were harmed in childbirth last year in hospital; and what action he is taking to reduce incidence of harm in childbirth. [100570]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information relating to harm to mothers and babies in hospital is not collected centrally by the Department. However, data on perinatal mortality, shown in the table, shows a continuing reduction in numbers and rate.

  Perinatal deaths (stillbirths plus deaths at ages up to six completed days of life): England and Wales 1992–01

  Number

  Rate per 1,000 total births

  19921

  5,238

  7.6

  1993

  6,044

  9.0

  1994

  5,958

  8.9

  1995

  5,701

  8.7

  1996

  5,605

  8.6

  1997

  5,380

  8.3

  1998

  5,261

  8.2

  1999

  5,138

  8.2

  2000

  4,956

  8.2

  20012

  4,740

  8.0

  1 For data from 1993, the definition of a stillbirth changed from 28 weeks to 24 weeks gestation.

  2 Provisional

  Source

  Office of National Statistics
  843W
  The Government has established the National Patient Safety Agency to improve the safety of National Health Service patient care by promoting an open and fair culture and by introducing a national reporting and learning system for adverse events, including those involving mothers and their babies. The system will be rolled out across the NHS from summer 2003.

  The Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths (CEMD), established in 1952, collects data and analyses data on all maternal deaths in the United Kingdom. This covers deaths of women while pregnant or within 42 days of delivery, miscarriage or termination of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management. The last report covering 1997–1999 was published in December 2001 and is available at www.cemd.orq.uk

  The Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy (CESDI) was established in 1992 with the aim of collecting and analysing data on deaths in late foetal life (involving foetuses at more than 20 weeks' gestation) and infancy (children up to one year) and to use the findings to reduce the risk of such deaths. The report covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has its own confidential enquiry.

  The findings of both CEMD and CESDI are important to both individuals and professional bodies. The messages are wide ranging and applicable to the entire spectrum of health workers, ranging from doctors, midwives, nurses and health visitors to coroners, and at times findings are particularly relevant to parents. All the professions represented on the CEMD & CESDI enquiries are signed up to implement its recommendations.

  In addition, the Department's programme of work to reduce harm to mother and baby during childbirth, includes:
  Issuing clinical guidelines through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidelines have been published on the use of electronic foetal monitoring, induction of labour and routine use of Anti-D prophylaxis for rhesus negative pregnant women.
  Further guidelines are due later this year on antenatal care, including antenatal screening, and the use of caesarean sections. We have also recently commissioned guidelines on intrapartum care (delivery), and post natal care.
  Developing a children's national service framework, including maternity services, to set national standards of care for antenatal, intrapartum and post natal services.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 20 November 2002, 2 January, 6 February and 13 March relating to her constituent Mrs. Mary Jaggs of Hoddesdon. [103737]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: The issues raised in the hon. Member's correspondence are the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I understand that a reply was sent on 4 December 2002.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 20 November 2002, 2 January, 6 February and 1 March relating to her constituent Mrs. Margaret Jewell of Hoddesdon. [103738]
  844W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 17 March.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 10 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Sally Burns. [103742]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend on 17 March.

  External Consultants
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the projects with a value in excess of £30,000 carried out by his Department using external consultants in the current financial year. [96697]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 11 February 2003]: Responsibility for procurement within the Department is devolved to individual business units operating within central guidance. Information is not held centrally on a project by project basis but a trawl of the Department, excluding agencies, at local business unit level has identified 10 projects in the current financial year with an expenditure to date on consultants in excess of £30,000:

  Business process re-engineering/Departmental of Health finance system

  Department of Health performance management

  Ensuring efficient delivery

  Financial flows project

  Benchmarking programme

  Mental health minimum dataset

  Infrastructure management services programme

  Establishment of the NHS franchising register of expertise

  Utilisation—based small area study of need for healthcare in England

  Shifting the balance of power.

  Eye Tests
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many free eye tests were given to(a) pensioners and (b) other people in (i) York and (ii) England in each year since 1997. [102692]

  Mr. Lammy
  The table shows the number of National Health Service sight tests paid for in north Yorkshire Health Authority (HA) and England for the years ending 31 March 1998 to 2002.

  Information for the years since 1997 is collected at HA level. York falls under north Yorkshire HA.

  Data is collected by eligibility group and not age. Hence, the closest match to pensioners is the eligibility group of those aged 60 and over.

  Information on the number of people having NHS sight tests is not collected centrally. The number of sight tests can not be equated with the number of people as some groups areadvised to have more than one sight test in a year.
  845W

  General Ophthalmic services: number of sight tests paid for by North Yorkshire

  HA and England for all patients and patients aged 60 and over for years ending 31 March 1998 to 2002

  Thousands

  North Yorkshire HA

  England

  Number of sight tests Number of for aged 60 and over

  Total number of sight tests

  Number of sight tests for aged 60 and over

  Total number of sight tests

  1997–98

  83

  6,991

  1998–99

  82

  6,992

  1999–2000

  52

  125

  3,301

  9,399

  2000–01

  62

  127

  3,753

  9,567

  2001–02

  69

  133

  4,013

  9,807

  Note

  Eligibility for NHS sight tests was extended to patients aged 60 and over from 1 April 1999.

  General Practice
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 885W, on the GP Patient Survey, whether a national report will be published on the results of the survey. [102893]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: There are no plans to publish a national report. Results have been disseminated on a strategic health authority (StHA) basis, allowing the cross-comparison of primary care trusts' results for local benchmarking purposes. This approach enables StHAs to maintain an overview of how results are formulated into local follow-up plans.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the existing duty of GPs in paragraph 43 of the terms of service to prescribe on the basis of patient need will be included in the new terms of service; [102912]

  (2) what changes are proposed in the duty of GPs in the NHS to treat patients on the basis of clinical need in the proposed new contract; [102913]

  (3) whether GPs will be required in their new contracts to take resources into account when recommending and prescribing treatments. [102914]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under the current general medical services (GMS) and personal medical services (PMS) contracts and under the proposed new GMS contract the fundamental principle that patients receive all of their national health service care and treatment—including prescribing and referral for specialist investigations—strictly according to their clinical needs applies.

  The proposed new contract for GMS will, if accepted by the profession, ensure that general practitioners will be rewarded for the quality of services they provide: not just the number of patients they treat.

  Hospices
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to provide funding for hospices. [100357]
  846W
  Ms Blears
  In the NHS Cancer Plan, published in September 2000, we pledged that the national health service contribution to the costs of specialist palliative care, including hospices, would increase by £50 million by 2004.

  To enable faster progress towards this commitment we have made available an extra £10 million from central budgets for specialist palliative care for 2002–03. We have also set up a central budget of £50 million per annum exclusively for specialist palliative care, for three years from 2003–04. Local plans are being developed by cancer networks around the country to determine on the appropriate deployment of those resources to support services according to local needs. This represents a significant increase nearly 40 per cent. in the NHS funding of specialist palliative care services. The £50 million is for specialist palliative care services in their entirety and not for voluntary hospices alone, though, as they play an essential role and provide two thirds of all specialist palliative care, it is reasonable to expect they will get a fair slice of this extra money. Further information is available on the Department's website at: www.info.doh.gov.uk/cancer/palliative 03 06.htm.

  In-patient Survey
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 887W, on the in-patient survey, whether a national report will be published on the results of the in-patient survey.[102894]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: There are no plans to publish a national report. Rather, results are being disseminated on a strategic health authority (StHA) basis, allowing the cross-comparison of trusts' results for local benchmarking purposes. This approach enables StHAs to maintain an overview of how results are formulated into local follow-up plans.

  Internal Telephone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the most recent internal telephone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [102030]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department's internal directory is maintained as a live database available to all staff and is constantly being updated. It is too detailed to be published in full but information on the Department's structure, organisation and responsibilities, with contact details where appropriate, is available on our website.

  As part of ongoing improvements to our website, this information is regularly reviewed and updated. Extracts are published in commercial directories, such as the Civil Service Yearbook, the Whitehall Companion and Health and Social Services Yearbook. The full directory is only available in online format, so a copy cannot be placed in the Library without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to implement the
  847W
  recommendations in the health service Ombudsman's report 'NHS funding for long term care'; and if he will make a statement.[103151]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have asked strategic health authorities to report back to their Directorate of Health and Social Care by 28 March with details of:Whether continuing care criteria in use since 1996 were consistent with the Coughlan judgment;
  If criteria were not consistent with the Coughlan judgment, when was this identified and what action was taken;
  An estimate of the number of people who may have been wrongly assessed under criteria not consistent with the Coughlan judgment.

  We have announced our intention to amend the regulations to be made under the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Bill to ensure that assessments for fully funded continuing national health service health care are carried out before discharge from hospital. This will ensure that nobody is issued with a section 2 notice (notice from the NHS to say that a patient requires social services) before an assessment for continuing NHS health care, informed by the single assessment process, has been carried out.

  We have written to the Commission for Health Improvement and asked that continuing care is included within the inspection of the national service framework for older people, due to begin in 2004.

  Meetings
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his policy to allow(a) the Children's Tsar and (b) the Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate to attend meetings with (i) individual hon. Members of Parliament, (ii) parliamentary groups, (iii) lobby groups and (iv) commercial companies. [100663]

  Mr. Lammy
  All meetings are conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Code and guidance set out in the Directory of Civil Service Guidance, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list internal flights made by Ministers in his Department in 2002, including in each case the(a) cost, (b) departure location and (c) destination; and of these how many were (i) first class, (ii) business class and (iii) economy class. [103587]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the response that was given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Douglas Alexander), on Wednesday 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  NHS (International Recruitment)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has a list of countries from which it regards it as acceptable actively to recruit healthcare professionals. [103086]
  848W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: The Department has worked together with the Department for International Development to produce a definitive list of developing countries and countries that should not be recruited from. This list is available on the Department of Health website at www.doh.qov.uk/international-recruitment/emplovercode.htm

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) adults and (b) children are registered with an NHS dentist in England; and what the figures were in May 1997. [103731]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: On 31 January 2003, 43.9 per cent. of adults and 60.1 per cent. of children were registered with a general dental service (CDS) dentist in England. At 31 May 1997, 51.9 per cent. of adults and 62.2 per cent. of children were registered.

  The registration rates at 31 January 2003 and at 31 May 1997 are not directly comparable due to changes in the registration period that affected registration numbers from November 1997.

  Registrations now lapse if the patient does not return to their dentists within 15 months of their last appointment. Registration rates therefore exclude patients who have not been to their CDS dentist within the past 15 months and unregistered patients who receive dental treatment from other National Health Service dental arrangements, such as occasional treatment.

  NHS Direct (Adverse Drug Reactions)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls NHS Direct has received from callers reporting adverse drug reactions since 1 January. [102525]

  Mr. Lammy
  NHS Direct has not received any calls from patients reporting adverse drug reactions. A pilot scheme for handling calls from callers reporting adverse drug reaction will be launched at NHS Direct South East London on 18 March. Following an initial review period, national roll-out will be completed by the end of this year.

  NHS Litigation Authority
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of procedures put in place by the NHS Litigation Authority to identify clinicians against whom there have been several complaints. [103565]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Health Service Litigation Authority (NHSLA) is not part of the complaints system in place in individual trusts. The NHSLA's function is to administer the clinical negligence schemes, i.e., the Existing Liabilities Scheme and the Clinical Negligence Scheme for trusts, as well as two non-clinical schemes. Since claims under these schemes are against the NHS bodies which are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, it is not considered necessary to record the name of the clinician when a claim is notified.
  849W
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he receives from the NHS litigation authority on clinicians against whom complaints have been made. [103566]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Health Service Litigation Authority does not collect information on complaints about clinicians.

  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to whom the NHS litigation authority makes information available on the litigation history of individual clinicians. [103567]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Health Service Litigation Authority (NHSLA) does not collect information on the litigation history of a clinician. The NHSLA shares its claims information with the National Patient Safety Agency, whose role it is to collate information on all incidents that occur in NHS trusts. Only in cases of a novel, contentious or repercussive nature is the NHSLA required to advise the Department of Health.

  Patient Advocacy
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the recommendations of the Transitional Advisory Board regarding the abolition of Community Health Councils and the introduction of patients' forums and independent complaints advisory services. [102828]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Chief Nursing Officer replied for the Government to the Transition Advisory Board's recommendations on 31 January. A ropy of this response is available at www.doh.gov.uk/involvinqpatients/tab

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether TUPE—Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—will apply to Community Health Council staff in relation to patients' forums and independent complaints advisory services. [102829]

  Mr. Lammy
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, having given careful consideration to the legal position of staff assigned to Community Health Councils, has decided that there will be no Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) transfer of CH C staff in relation to The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, the support to patients' forums and the Independent Complaints and Advocacy Services.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he plans to take to eradicate variation in the quality of services under the new arrangements for patient advocacy following the abolition of Community Health Councils;[102831]

  (2) what arrangements he has made to ensure the continuity of patient advocacy and a smooth transition to the new arrangements after the abolition of Community Health Councils; [102833]

  (3) what steps his Department has taken to evaluate pilot independent complaints advisory services; and if he will make a statement. [102830]
  850W
  Mr. Lammy
  It is our intention that Independent Complaints Advocacy Services (ICAS) will be available throughout the country from 1 September 2003.

  In the new system of patient and public involvement, ICAS is the responsibility of primary care trust (PCT) patients' forums. As an interim measure, whilst patients' forums are being established and are building their capacity and networks, we shall be working with the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) to put in place national coverage of ICAS through a contract with specialist complaints support providers.

  To support this system, we shall make arrangements to enable the CPPIH to manage the contract and to ensure services are provided to national standards.

  I recently announced an extension to the ICAS pilots to 31 July 2003. The full evaluation of the pilots will take place at the end of June, when we will have three quarterly returns from the pilots on the experience and activity. The evaluation will include all the pilots plus the support offered to them.

  The initial benchmarking exercise of a sample of the pilots, undertaken in January this year, has shown that ICAS provision has been well received and that pilots need to focus on developing good working relationships with the local national health service, in particular patient advice and liaison services, work with patients to find out their views of the ICAS service and ways of collecting data which can be used to improve NHS services.

  The CPPIH has a specific remit to set national standards for ICAS and to monitor compliance. The ICAS pilots currently work to draft national standards and are developing local operational protocols, which will inform future provision.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that the expertise and knowledge of Community Health Council staff are not lost in the new arrangements for patients' forums and independent complaints advisory services. [102832]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have never envisaged that we could guarantee employment for Community Health Council (CHC) staff in the new system of patient and public involvement or that we would treat CHC staff differently from the way we deal with other national health service staff when they are affected by restructuring—the human resources framework for CHC staff makes this clear. This framework was developed jointly with the employers and NHS unions and will provide help and support to CHC staff to seek alternative employment in the NHS.

  However, jobs in the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will be advertised to CHC staff first and those staff who meet the essential criteria for posts will be guaranteed interviews.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health commissioners have undertaken on patients' forums and the independent complaints advisory services; and what discussions they have had with the Association of Community Health Councils in England and Wales. [102834]
  851W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Department does not maintain records of discussions held by the individual commissioners of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) and because of this the information requested is not available. More information about the CPPIH and the commissioners is available from its website at www.cppih.org

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will be responsible for taking up the cases of those patients that remain unresolved by the Community Health Councils on 1 September 2003. [102835]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are currently working on guidance for the handling of any patients' cases that remain unresolved in Community Health Councils when they are abolished on 1 September 2003.

  Pharmacies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of NHS pharmacies required to provide NHS services to local communities; how many pharmacies dispense on behalf of the NHS; and what assessment he has made of the optimum location of these pharmacies in future. [103455]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: Under the National Health Service Act 1977, it is the responsibility of national health service primary care trusts (PCTs) to arrange the provision of pharmaceutical services in their area. This includes determining whether it is necessary or desirable to secure adequate provision of services by granting new applications. The Health and Social Care Act 2001 also empowers PCTs to devise contracts for local pharmaceutical services which address particular local needs.

  We remain committed to maintaining and improving access to pharmaceutical services. We are currently considering the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading to remove these statutory controls and any implications it may have for this objective.

  As at March 2002, there were 9,756 community pharmacies in England in contract with the NHS to dispense prescriptions.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive Department of Health on the Office of Fair Trading report on the regulation of pharmacies. [103286]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: We are in regular contact with the Scottish Executive in considering the report from the Director General of Fair Trading. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is co-ordinating the Government's response.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the Office of Fair Trading report on control of entry regulations to the pharmacy market on his Department's strategy on the reclassification of medicines from prescription-only to pharmacy sale. [103463]
  852W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: We are considering the report from the Director General of Fair Trading and its findings and recommendation carefully, including any implications it may have for the procedures we introduced in May 2002 to streamline the medicines reclassification system.

  The Government continues to encourage pharmaceutical companies to apply for their products to be reclassified where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the Office of Fair Trading report on control of entry regulations to the pharmacy market on his Department's strategy on the reclassification of medicines from prescription only to pharmacy sale; [102851]

  (2) what assessment he has made of (a) the number of pharmacies required to provide NHS services to local communities and (b) the optimum location for these pharmacies. [102853]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are considering the report from the Director General of Fair Trading and its findings and recommendation carefully.

  This includes any implications it may have for the procedures we introduced in May 2002 to streamline the medicines reclassification system. The Government continues to encourage pharmaceutical companies to apply for their products to be reclassified where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

  The Government remains committed to maintaining and improving access to pharmaceutical services. Under the National Health Service Act 1977, it is the responsibility of NHS primary care trusts (PCTs) to arrange the provision of pharmaceutical services in their area. This includes determining whether it is necessary or desirable to secure adequate provision of services by granting new applications. The Health and Social Care Act 2001 also empowers PCTs to devise contracts for local pharmaceutical services which address particular local needs.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many responses he has received to the OFT report on the UK market for retail pharmacy services; [103183]

  (2) what steps he is taking to safeguard access to pharmacy services for (a) elderly people, (b) people with disabilities and (c) those reliant on public transport; [103185]

  (3) what discussions he has had with pensioners' representatives on retail pharmacy services. [103184]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: We have received around 1,000 responses so far to the Director General of Fair Trading's report on community pharmacies.

  I have had no recent specific discussions with representatives of pensioners about retail pharmacy services. However, I and my officials have met patient and consumer interests as well as leading pharmacy and medical organisations to hear their views on the report. These have included views on the implications of the report's recommendation for continued access to pharmacy services for older people and those with

  853W
  special needs. The Government remains fully committed to maintaining and improving access to national health service pharmacy services for all.

  Prison Employees
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS employees work in prisons. [103382]

  Jacqui Smith
  A survey carried out in January 2003 identified 3,513 staff as providing healthcare in prisons. Of these, 1,953 were employed by the prison service. Information is not collected centrally about how many of the rest were National Health Service employees.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to issue an international code of conduct for the recruitment of overseas social worker staff. [100144]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is the responsibility of individual employers to ensure that their recruitment policies and procedures comply with current legislation whether recruiting within England or abroad.

  Employers of qualified social workers from abroad can verify the qualifications of applicants within the General Social Care Council (GSCC). This is an advisory service to employers on the standing of international qualifications. They will also issue a letter of verifications for foreign qualifications to those social workers from abroad who choose to apply for it. This confirms the professional status of the qualification held in the country of origin.

  The GSCC has also issued codes of practice for social care workers and employers which apply to all social care staff across the United Kingdom, irrespective of from where they are recruited. Appliance with these codes is taken into account when enforcing care standards.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for which benefits the threshold payment of compensation for delays in processing the benefit is less than eight months' delay. [97909]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is as follows.

  Benefit

  Attendance Allowance

  Attendance Allowance (Special Rules)

  Attendance Allowance (Renewals)

  Bereavement Benefit

  Child Benefit

  Disability Living Allowance

  Disability Living Allowance (Special Rules)

  Incapacity Benefit

  Income Support

  Invalidity Benefit

  Jobseeker's Allowance (Contributory)

  Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based)

  854W

  Maternity Allowance

  Sickness Benefit

  Social Fund Community Care Grants + Budgeting loans

  Social Fund (Funeral)

  Social Fund (Maternity)

  Unemployment Benefit

  Widows Benefit

  Widows Payment

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many cases, in each year since 1997, compensation for delay in processing benefit in respect of retirement pension has been paid; what percentage such costs represent of total applications for retirement pension in each year; and what average level of compensation has been paid in each case. [97910]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  Retirement pension compensation cases (for delay) in comparison to applications received

  Year

  Number of retirement of pension compensation payments

  Number of retirement of pension claims (thousands)

  Percentage compensation payments to claims receied (percentage)

  Average compensation paid in each case (£)

  1997–98

  422

  737

  0.06

  503.95

  1998–99

  290

  702

  0.04

  474.67

  1999–2000

  402

  717

  0.06

  397.73

  2000–01

  1,068

  611

  0.17

  271.59

  2001–02

  2,331

  652

  0.36

  318.33

  1. Figures for retirement pension claims have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. The final totals for 2002–03 are not, as yet, available.

  Child Benefit Cancellation
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations the Department has received from the Learning and Skills Council about the cancellation of a mother's child benefit due to receipt of a £40 per week grant through the modern apprenticeship scheme. [100614]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department receives many representations on a variety of issues.

  For young people between the ages of 16 and 18, Child Benefit is payable if they are in full-time, non advanced education, and for a short defined period after they leave such education. Child Benefit is not payable for those who start work or work-based training.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many cases parents with care not on income support have voluntarily discontinued using the services of CSA to collect child maintenance in each of the last 12 months. [100812]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.
  855W
  Letter from Doug Smith to Steve Webb, dated March 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in replying to you recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask in how many cases parents with care not on income support have voluntarily discontinued using the services of Child Support Agency to collect child maintancance in each of the last 12 months.
  We do not collect this information and I regret that I do not feel that it can be safely deduced from other information that we do collect.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) in what circumstances disability living allowance is currently payable to persons who go abroad; and if he plans to review this; [101724]

  (2) which benefits are available to eligible disabled students pursuing their studies (a) in the United Kingdom, (b) within the European Economic Area and (c) elsewhere on the basis that (i) the course of study is centred on a UK institution and (ii) the period abroad is either a requirement of the course or a recommendation of course tutors. [101916]

  Maria Eagle
  Under domestic law, people who are ordinarily resident in Great Britain can receive disability living allowance (DLA) during the first 26 weeks of a period of temporary absence abroad. This period can be extended where someone is abroad specifically to receive treatment for an illness or disability. Members of HM forces serving abroad and their families, mariners and airmen working abroad, and people working on the UK sector of the continental shelf may also receive these benefits.

  People who spend longer than 26 weeks abroad can receive DLA immediately upon their return providing the total period of temporary absence does not exceed 52 weeks. A longer absence will defer entitlement by a corresponding number of weeks, for example, a person who returns after 54 weeks can be paid after two weeks of residence and, after 78 weeks of temporary absence, a person will need to spend 26 weeks in Great Britain before payment can recommence.

  Under European Community law, workers and members of their families who were entitled to DLA before 1 June 1992 can continue to receive it if, before that date, they left the UK and took up permanent residence in another member state of the European Union (EU). The law changed at that date, with transitional provision made for such cases. The provisions are treated as also covering workers and members of their families who move to another member state after 1 June 1992 provided their entitlement to the benefit started before that date. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Gibraltar and Switzerland are treated like EU member states for social security purposes.

  Disabled students can receive DLA on the same basis as other severely disabled people. The 26 weeks temporary absence rule means that those who study in another country, whether or not an EU member state, can receive payment continuously if they return to Great Britain during the vacations.
  856W
  Students pursuing their studies in Great Britain may also receive incapacity benefit (IB). In addition, those who are entitled to a disability premium or severe disability premium in the assessment of income support (IS), housing benefit (HB) and council tax benefit (CTB) are eligible for IS, HB and CTB while studying full-time in Great Britain.

  The domestic law on temporary absence abroad which applies to contribution-based IB and noncontributory IB (which replaced severe disablement allowance for young people from April 2001) reflects the rules for DLA, subject to certain conditions. The recipient must have been incapable of work for six months or receiving treatment for their incapacity or have an incapacity which resulted from an industrial injury. Payment of IB can continue beyond the first 26 weeks if the person also gets DLA (or attendance allowance, which is available to severely disabled people aged 65 or over).

  Under European community law, IB based on National Insurance contributions can usually be paid to people resident in an EU member state. It can also be paid in countries with which the UK has a reciprocal social security agreement. Any further provisions for the payment of IB depend on the terms of the individual agreements.

  IS is payable for up to four weeks of absence abroad. Payment is made when the recipient returns. Any person who is temporarily away from home may receive HB and CTB for up to 13 weeks provided they intend to return during that period and their home is not let or sub-let during their absence.

  We have no plans to review these arrangements. Information about Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office.

  Departmental Electricity Charges
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes in unit payments for electricity have resulted from the switch by his Department to purchasing renewable energy which is exempt from the climate change levy. [96486]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions currently has 17.5 per cent. of its total electricity requirements supplied from renewable sources that are exempt from the climate change levy. There has been no increase in the unit payment for this renewable energy over the price of brown supplies, including the climate change levy.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the level of(a) fraud by and (b) overpayments to landlords in respect of housing benefit in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what action his Department is taking to reduce such fraud and overpayments. [102732]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. The 1997–98 National Housing Benefit Accuracy Review estimated that the landlord fraud which could be established by the review cost
  857W
  £30 million. We are now running an ongoing Housing Benefit Review which will provide new estimates for landlord fraud.

  Later this year, as part of our reforms to improve the administration of housing benefit, standard rate housing allowance will start to be piloted in 10 pathfinder offices. Paying the allowance direct to claimants will eliminate some opportunities for fraud by landlords. A detailed evaluation will take place once the pathfinders are complete.

  IT Projects
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list each information technology project being undertaken by his Department and its agencies including(a) the start date, (b) the planned completion date, (c) the current expected completion date, (d) the planned cost and (e) the current estimated cost; and if he will make a statement. [98224]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department is undertaking a major modernisation programme encompassing both organisational and IT reform. We received £2 billion for the modernisation programme in SR2000, and a further £1.9 billion in SR2002. The programme began in 2001 and is currently funded until March 2006. Current planned costs include spend to date and estimate to project completion, and are set out by client group in the following below:

  £

  Work programme

  Allocation

  Working age

  375

  Pensions

  830

  Children

  585

  Corporate

  1,433

  Figures include all modernisation projects with an IT element, although they do not include running costs or the costs of rolling out the Pension Service and Jobcentre Plus.

  Estimates are subject to change as projects move through the project lifecycle.

  Invalid Care Allowances
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people in each of the last three years have been overpaid in respect of invalid care allowance where the overlapping benefit rule applied; and what the total amount overpaid in this respect was in each year; [101947]

  (2) what estimate he has made of (a) the cost of removing the overlapping benefit rule in respect of invalid care allowance and (b) the number of beneficiaries. [101948]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 13 March 2003]: Information about the number of overpayments of invalid care allowance due to the operation of the overlapping benefit rules is not available.

  Exempting invalid care allowance from the overlapping benefit rules would run counter to the basic principle that the social security scheme should avoid making duplicate provision from public funds for the
  858W
  same contingency by paying more than one income-maintenance benefit at the same time. The estimated gross cost would be around £320 million1 a year2, affecting some 160,000 recipients. After adjusting for offsets in the income-related benefits3, the estimated net cost would be about £190 million1 a year.
  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million and assume no increase in ICA take up
  2 Gross costs calculated from data taken from a 100 per cent extract of ICA records in September 2002. The costs include an allowance for underlying entitlement cases not currently on the ICA computer system.
  3 Income support offsets calculated from a 5 per cent extract of records in September 2002. housing benefit/council tax benefit offsets calculated from a 1 per cent sample of records in May 2001

  Pension Schemes
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pension schemes the Pensions Schemes Registry recorded as(a) having started wind-up proceedings and (b) completing wind-up proceedings in each year from 1979 to 2002; and how many members were covered by the schemes in each case. [102592]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), on 11 February 2003,Official Report, columns 687–688W.

  In 1997, the regulations that governed which schemes had a levy liability changed. Robust information for the period prior to 1 April 1997 is not available from the Registry.

  Pensioners (North-East Derbyshire)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners there are in North East Derbyshire; how many qualify for a free television licence; and how many get the minimum income guarantee. [103577]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available for the North East Derbyshire constituency shows that the number of people in receipt of state pension as at 30 September 2002 was 18,300. As at 31 May 2002 there were 7,700 people in receipt of a key benefit aged over 75 and therefore eligible for free TV licences. There were 3,100 people receiving the minimum income guarantee as at November 2002.

  Sources:

  Pension Strategy Computer System as at 30 September 2002.
  Client Group Analysis of the population over state pension age as at May 2002
  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry November 2002.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Courts
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when(a) Newport asylum court and (b) Stoke asylum court were completed; when each concluded its first case; and if he will make a statement.
  859W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Neither Hearing Centre has been used for hearings. Newport was ready to commence hearings on 2 December 2002. However, planning consent for change of use was refused before that date. The Immigration Appellate Authority has subsequently appealed against that decision and this is being dealt with by public inquiry.

  Stoke was ready to commence hearings on 9 December 2002. However, planning consent for change of use was refused before that date. The Immigration Appellate Authority has been successful in its appeal against that decision and hearings are due to commence by 7 April 2003.

  Departmental Studies
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what studies have been undertaken of the options for(a) commercialising the Public Records Office and (b) rationalising the offices of the Land Registry; and if she will make a statement. [102873]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Record Office (PRO) was subject to a Quinquennial Review in 1997–98, which concluded that its core functions in relation to its oversight of records management in other government departments and its custody of historical public records can only be carried out from within government. The PRO established a commercial arm, PRO Enterprises, eight years ago. Since the ways in which revenue is raised via the commercial exploitation of the Office's holdings and sites have expanded steadily.

  Income is raised through a flourishing retailing operation, (two shops and an internet bookshop); a successful publishing house; and an image library which provides expert services in supplying images to commercial customers including publishers and broadcasters. We are also developing a range of licensing projects based on the commercial use of PRO-held images. Revenue is generated through arrangements with licensees from the worlds of social stationery, gift merchandise, homewares and ceramics and also through concluding licences with on-line content providers for the commercial use of PRO images of interest to the genealogical and academic communities.

  Income has grown from £642,646 in 1998–99 to a projected £900,000 in 2002–03. Revenue raised via commercial activities can be retained to fund Office-wide projects.

  The Report of the latest Quinquennial Review of the Land Registry (published in June 2001) recommended that the Registry should plan to retain the present regional office structure, without major change, for the foreseeable future. The Report considered that the Registry's District network of offices had been a considerable success, the tangible benefits being staff units of an optimal size; the ability to recruit more able staff; improvements in performance through benchmarking throughout the network; and convenient units for piloting new processes.
  860W
  Most of the Registry's work takes place in 24 District Land Registries and other units located outside London. The Land Registry's policy is to provide and maintain sufficient good quality accommodation with first class working environments to enable business operations to be carried out efficiently and effectively.

  Fraud and Theft
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money has been lost by his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies through(a) fraud and (b) theft for each year since 1996–97. [92433]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Figures are only available up to the end of Financial Year 2001–02. Actual losses from theft and fraud since 1996–97 were as follows:

  £

  Department and Agencies

  NDPBs

  1996–97

  29,474.37

  —

  1997–98

  21,721.52

  —

  1998–99

  68,714.02

  —

  1999–2000

  21,521.97

  —

  2000–01

  8,338.16

  —

  2001–02

  48,801.47

  13,137

  Figures have been adjusted to reflect recoveries received in subsequent financial years. These figures do not include those for the Legal Services Commission about which I will be writing to the hon. Member separately, copies of which will be placed in the libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [89894]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Figures are only available up to the end of Financial Year 2001–02. Actual losses from Theft and Fraud in 2001–02 were as follows:

  £

  Department

  8,367.00

  Agencies

  40,434.47

  NDPBs

  13,137.00

  These figures do not include those for the Legal Services Commission about which I will be writing separately.

  Litigants in Person
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many litigants in person there were in court proceedings in each of the last 10 years.[103238]

  Yvette Cooper
  The following table has the available information on the number of litigants appearing in person in the county courts and Queens Bench Division of the High Court.
  861W

  Litigants appearing in person during county court trials and small claims hearings England and Wales figures 1994–2002 Trials—County court

  Litigants in person

  Percentage in person

  Number of county court trails

  Claimant

  Defendant

  Claimant

  Defendant

  1994

  24,219

  5,570

  7,500

  23.0

  31.4

  1995

  24,477

  1,600

  3,930

  6.5

  16.1

  1996

  19,608

  2,400

  3,550

  12.2

  18.1

  1997

  15,511

  1,590

  3,020

  10.3

  19.5

  1998

  14,202

  1,080

  1,900

  7.6

  13.4

  1999

  13,437

  880

  1,660

  6.5

  12.4

  2000

  15,397

  1,230

  2,280

  8.0

  14.8

  2001

  13,430

  700

  1,140

  5.2

  8.5

  2002

  12,294

  960

  1,440

  7.8

  11.7

  Trials-High court (Queens Bench)

  Litigants in person

  Perecentage in person

  Number Queen's Bench trials

  Claimant

  Defendant

  Claimant

  Defendant

  1994

  4,420

  90

  70

  2.0

  1.6

  1995

  4,369

  90

  80

  2.1

  1.8

  Note:

  Figures not collected after 1995
  862W

  Small Claims

  Litigants in person

  Percentage in person

  Number small claims hearings

  Claimant

  Defendant

  Claimant

  Defendant

  1994

  71,822

  Figures not collected

  —

  —

  1995

  88,170

  Figures not collected

  —

  —

  1996

  94,050

  57,240

  64,000

  60.9

  68.0

  1997

  97,813

  43,460

  69,910

  44.4

  71.5

  1998

  98,692

  53,180

  69,920

  53.9

  70.8

  1999

  88,389

  42,250

  54,640

  47.8

  61.8

  2000

  55,836

  28,680

  36,240

  51.4

  64.9

  2001

  58,333

  28,670

  35,500

  49.1

  60.9

  2002

  55,719

  31,890

  37,160

  57.2

  66.7

  Note:

  The numbers in italics are weighted figures based on sample data and have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Sutton Coldfield Courthouse
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress the Lord Chancellor is making in deciding the future of Sutton Coldfield Courthouse.[102888]

  Yvette Cooper
  The appeal process is still going on. The decision will be taken once both parties to the appeal are satisfied that their case is complete and they have made their representations fully.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive Annual Accounts (2001–2002)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  The accounts of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIA 71/02) for the year ended 31 March 2002 incorporating the Reports of the Local Government Auditor and the Comptroller & Auditor General thereon will be laid before the NI Assembly on Wednesday 19 March 2003.

  Copies of NIA 71/02 have been placed in the House of Commons Library and in NI Assembly Library at Stormont.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Minimum Wage
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  In June 2002 I asked the independent Low Pay Commission to produce their fourth report on the national minimum wage by the end of February 2003. I deliberately gave the Commission a wide remit so that they could come back with recommendations on any aspect of the minimum wage, including the levels of the adult and development rates.

  The Government is today publishing the Commission's fourth report and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chair of the Commission, Adair Turner, and its other members for their work on this very important issue.

  The Commission have put forward sixteen recommendations in total, but I regard five of these as key recommendations. The Commission have recommended increasing the adult rate of the minimum wage from the present £4.20 to £4.50 in October 2003, and to £4.85 in October 2004. They have recommended increasing the development rate from the present £3.60 to £3.80 in October 2003 and £4.10 in October 2004. They have also recommended that they should be invited to fine-tune the recommended October 2004 upratings of the rates in early 2004, in the light of economic circumstances.

  The Commission have found little or no evidence so far of any significant impact on the employment prospects of the low paid, and they believe that all the signs are that the minimum wage can now be increased as a percentage of average earnings benefiting more workers without producing damaging economic effects. The Commission have therefore proposed successive increases to the adult rate of around 7–8 per cent. in both 2003 and 2004—about double the present rate of average earnings. Between 1.3 to 1.6 million low-paid
  44WS
  workers stand to benefit from the 2003 increases, and 1.7 to 2.5 million low-paid workers stand to benefit from the 2004 increases.

  The Government agrees with the broad approach followed by the Commission; namely that the minimum wage should be increased in order to help the low paid, while taking care not to damage their employment prospects. We are therefore pleased to accept the recommended rate increases for 2003 and also provisionally to accept the increases for 2004 subject, as the Commission proposes, to their further advice in early 2004 in the light of economic circumstances. The Commission have recommended that they be asked to consider the case for introducing a minimum wage rate for 16–17 year old workers and to report by February 2004, so that a rate could be introduced by October 2004.

  The Government agrees that this is a serious issue which merits further consideration. The Government will ask the Commission to look at the possible advantages and disadvantages of a minimum wage rate for 16 to 17 year olds in the context of a wider review looking at education and training policy, and the system of financial support for young people. The Commission will be asked to work closely with relevant Departments. The Government will draw up a formal remit for the Commission's work on this issue and the review of the proposed 2004 increases shortly, including the timing of their report.

  The fifth key recommendation from the Commission is that we should move 21 year old workers onto the adult rate. Unfortunately we are unable to accept this recommendation. Economic evidence continues to show that employment and unemployment rates for 21 year old workers are more in line with 18 to 20 year olds rather than older workers, and in some cases worse than those for 20 year olds. We therefore believe that there would be a real risk of further damaging their employment prospects if they were moved onto the adult rate.

  I have placed copies of this statement, the Report from the Low Pay Commission, the Government's full response to the Commission's recommendations and our Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Libraries of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Secured Car Park Scheme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth)
  The Home Office has today published the research report "Between the Lines: An evaluation of the Secured Car Park Award Scheme". Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The Government has set a target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over five years and reducing car crime significantly plays an important part in meeting it.
  45WS
  The Secured Car Park Scheme belongs to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and is strongly supported by the Home Office. Key findings highlighted in the report include:
  The scheme can help reduce the level of crime and fear of crime in car parks;
  Formal surveillance (including patrols), lighting, access and a good physical appearance of the car park can lead to reductions in car crime;
  46WS
  The management of car parks appears to be a critical factor in developing safer car parks;
  The scheme would benefit from improved marketing and more consistent application of standards across the country.

  The report made a number of recommendations as to how the scheme could be improved and these are being taken forward by the ACPO Secured Car Parks Joint Steering Group where all key stakeholders are represented.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Investment
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to raise corporate investment from last year's record low point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, in 2002 business investment as a proportion of GDP was 12.1 per cent, which is the lowest percentage on a constant price basis since 1996, but higher than the previous six years. The Government will continue to maintain a stable macro-economic environment and a range of micro-economic measures to encourage firms to invest for the long term.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, bearing in the mind the sharpness of the fall last year and the continuing weakness of investment intentions, does not that augur badly for future profitability, productivity, competitiveness and growth? Is it not time the Chancellor listened to the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce and reduced business taxation before his revenue falls further?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is right that falls in investment are bad news for the future profitability of business. We are acutely aware of that. But the reasons for the fall—a combination of the slow-down in the world economy and economic uncertainty—are well known. We have already made major changes to corporate taxation but, in the short term, they will not affect the level of investment.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the conclusions of the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce in their pre-Budget submissions that the Chancellor has damaged the profits, productivity and investment plans of UK companies through the imposition of £47 billion of extra taxation between 1997 and 2005 and the burden of extra regulation and red tape? If not, why not?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it makes no sense to attribute the sharp decline in business investment in 2002 to factors that the Opposition and, to a certain extent, the CBI have said have been present throughout the life of this Government. The fall in investment in 2002 is clearly related to the situation in the world economy and to economic uncertainty. investment peaked in the fourth quarter of 2000. Therefore, unless there are factors of which I am
234
unaware, clearly what we are now seeing is attributable to the world slow-down in economic growth. which is equally hitting the investment plans of other countries.
Lord Newby: My Lords, the Minister says that the slow-down is commonplace across the world, but will know that since the end of 2000 overall investment in the UK has fallen faster than in America, Japan, France, Germany and Italy. Therefore there must be at least an element of something that this Government are doing that is unique to the United Kingdom. Will the Minister pass on to his colleagues in the Treasury the plea from business that there should be no business tax increases in the forthcoming Budget? Unlike in previous Budgets, far from making business taxation vastly more complicated the Chancellor might usefully seek to introduce a major measure of corporate tax simplification in the Budget this year.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is always wrong to start from mistaken assumptions. In 2001, corporate investment in the US fell by 5.2 per cent. and in Germany by 4.5 per cent. In the UK it increased by 0.9 per cent. In 2002 we saw another fall of 5.7 per cent in the US. I agree that there was a substantial fall in the UK of 10 per cent, but if you take the two years together it is not at all clear that British investment is worse.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Government sought to justify the Chancellor's £5 billion a year raid on pension funds by changing ACT on the grounds that it would improve investment. Is that still the Government's view now that companies, instead of investing, have to use the moneys to top up their pension funds?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the noble Lord will remember, the abolition of dividend tax credits was part of a wider package of corporate tax reforms, which included rate cuts. It is wholly inaccurate to look at one measure in isolation. The Government have reduced corporation tax. The net effect of the reforms since 1997 has been to reduce the corporate tax bill. The Government have cut the main rate of corporation tax by 3 percentage points to its lowest level in UK corporate history.

Doctors: Suspension
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
What improvements have been made in situations of doctors suspended from the National Health Service since the setting up of the National Clinical Assessment Authority.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the National Clinical Assessment Authority has helped the NHS manage concerns about medical performance and has supported doctors in over 500 cases. The Chief Medical Officer has recently reminded NHS employers in

235
England to consider asking the NCAA for advice when they have serious concerns about the performance of a doctor which might lead to suspension.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is strong and growing criticism of the NCAA that its assessments are frequently biased and wrong? Is she also aware that the authority has spent some £9.5 million in two years yet has completed only 16 assessments of the 300 cases referred to it? Does she really think that the NCAA is providing good value for money, as, additionally, all suspended doctors are on full pay and do nothing, sometimes for months and even years, because of delayed judgments?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I know how deeply the noble Baroness feels about inappropriate suspension and the distress that that causes doctors. The NCAA was set up to address those concerns. So the number of assessments does not represent in any way the sum total or value of the NCAA's work. There have been 18 assessments but 500 cases have been dealt with; in many instances, they have not gone to assessment and the doctors have not been suspended because the intensive advice presented by caseworkers, often over a period of time, has meant that issues have been resolved on the ground. When the noble Baroness asks me whether I think the NCAA is good value for money, I would say yes. Every doctor who is not suspended and has returned to work, maybe with retraining, represents a gain to the NHS. The feedback that we have had after the first 18 months shows that 80 per cent of the people dealt with have reported positively.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is it not far from clear whether the NCAA is really doing the job that it was set up to do in reducing the number of long-term suspensions of doctors? I have here an e-mail from a junior doctor who says:
"I have not been told whether I am suspended, on sick leave, study leave or special leave. This can't be right".
Does the NCAA really provide value for money? Should not the National Audit Office look into this matter?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, this body has been in operation for only 18 months. It has moved fast to address serious concerns and to create a culture in which doctors are more confident in what they do and health authorities are more confident that the procedures are right. We believe that it is working well. In addition, the national project on long-term suspension deals specifically with cases in which doctors have been suspended for longer than six months. Over the last quarter there were 29 such cases; 10 of those doctors have been returned to work and are no longer suspended, and 19 are being actively managed to give them support, retraining, or whatever they need.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some doctors are suspended for as long as
236
four years, which causes terrible trauma for them and their families? At the end of that time they are very often exonerated. What happens to their false accusers?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The reason for setting up the NCAA in 2001 was because there were some outstanding cases from the late 1990s. Having a body to which health employers can refer instantly when they identify a problem and from which they can obtain appropriate advice so that the problem is nipped in the bud means that we do not have these interminable cases which cause such distress for both doctors and patients.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does not the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have a point? Is there not a possibility that this matter could be referred to the National Audit Office? I am sure that it would produce a very interesting report.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it so happens that the National Audit Office is considering the whole range of clinical suspensions and is looking at all health authorities across the range of specialties. We hope that it will report some time in the summer. So, although it is not looking at exactly the same population, we will have more information on which to build good practice.
Lord Chan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a disproportionately high number of suspended doctors are from ethnic minority groups? Has that been investigated by the NCAA or the Department of Health?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord has told me something I did not know. There has been no attempt to look at the suspension of ethnic minority doctors separately from that of anyone else, but I will write to the noble Lord and give him whatever information the department holds on that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is there no procedure for appeal against a suspension, which could take four years? If there is, could the Minister tell the House what it is?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I understand it, there is an appeal procedure for general practitioners who have been suspended and, I believe, for hospital doctors. I will have to write to the noble Lord, as I am not familiar with the details.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how many people have been working as doctors under false pretences, without qualifications?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I think that that goes slightly wide of the Question. I take some consolation

237
from that, because I am afraid I have no idea. I imagine it is rather difficult to find out. I do not know whether I have helped the noble Baroness at all.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some cases have lasted much longer than the four years that has been quoted today? When I was on a regional health authority, one doctor had been suspended on what I suppose could be called gardening leave for over a decade on full pay. It is wrong that there is no employment procedure. We have heard about the hardship for doctors, but there is also hardship for the National Health Service and for patients if someone cannot be reinstated in that period. There should be some way of terminating the employment.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I believe the noble Baroness was referring to a case that was notorious in the mid to late 1990s. The new procedures to manage suspension came in as a result of that. I agree that we must look carefully to ensure that nothing like that happens again.

Transport: Social Exclusion Unit Report
2.50 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to implement the strategies contained in Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion published by the Social Exclusion Unit on 27th February.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for the Question, although I hope that he agrees that it is a wildly unsuitable subject for simply a Starred Question. I want to tell the House about all the 37 policies in the Social Exclusion Unit report. All that I have time to say is that the Department for Transport will co-ordinate work on local transport plans to improve accessibility to work and local services. Other departments will contribute work on, among other matters, land use planning issues, school transport, access to healthcare, local food shops and safer streets, especially for the one in three households without a car.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am not sure whether I thank my noble friend for that backhanded compliment, but I am grateful for what he said because I too think it a good report. Children from the lowest socio-economic groups are five times more likely than those from the highest groups to be killed on the roads. The report says that that is dealt with through local transport plans. As my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently told the best performing local authorities that they did not need to produce local transport plans in future, how will this serious issue be dealt with by those lucky councils?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, local authorities will still have to tackle the problems that
238
the noble Lord rightly recognises. There are more deaths, particularly pedestrian deaths, including those among children, in deprived areas. It is difficult to tease out why that is the case. Part of the reason relates to local illegal activities, such as joyriding. In part it is because of had lighting. Part of it can be dealt with by closed circuit television cameras. Part of it is because transport services have not been planned adequately to go into deprived areas. That will have to be corrected. On top of the £1 billion a year we spend on local bus services, we shall have to ensure that extra money goes into those areas.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government take into account all the various categories of disabled people and their disabilities, which make ordinary transport very difficult for some disabled citizens? They should not be a reason for excluding those people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, that is why the Social Exclusion Unit is so called. It is not simply about poor families—although it concerns them. It is about those who have disadvantages that make accessibility difficult for them. That includes the whole range of people with disabilities. A considerable part of the Social Exclusion Unit's report is devoted to that. I commend it to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, can my nobly friend tell me what account is taken of the opinion of children themselves in making transport plans that are going to affect their safety?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, another significant amount of money—£900 million a year£is spent on specialist transport for schools, hospitals and social services. Again, it is necessary and possible to ensure that, in making plans, local authorities take particular account of people in need who are socially excluded. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is entirely right.
The Earl of Listowal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Shelter, the national homelessness charity. estimates that there are 100,000 children homeless in this country? Is further aware that homeless families are often placed in accommodation away from their children's schools and away from their family, friends and community? How does the Government's strategy address their needs? Is consideration being given to reducing bus fares for that group, given the recent rises in those fares?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes indeed, my Lords. The homelessness directorate, which is concerned with people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and with rough sleepers, is giving guidance to local authorities to seek to ensure that such families are placed as locally as possible, and certainly within the same borough. There are no legal powers to subsidise or provide concessionary travel for homeless people, but some experiments are being carried out. For example, Blackpool Borough

239
council is providing free school transport to ensure that those who have been housed away from their original school can go back to the same school. That is a good example for other parts of the country.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, the report makes clear that the link between land use planning and transport planning is essential if we are to combat social exclusion. In their forthcoming planning legislation, why do the Government propose to separate those powers for county councils? Is this an example of the joined-up thinking we hear so much about?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the trend of land use for many years has been against people in positions of social exclusion. As car ownership has risen, there have been strong commercial pressures to move to, for example, larger and more remote shopping centres. We have to make strong efforts to ensure that local shops, particularly local food shops, are still available. Under no plans is there going to be any diminution of land use planning. There are differences in the responsibilities between different tiers of local government.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, will my noble friend expand slightly on the original question that my noble friend Lord Berkeley posed about the differences in the number of road deaths among different socioeconomic groups? Does not that highlight the problems of enforcement and of inappropriate speed limits, which could be reduced?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that that is one of the issues that can be considered. It would certainly be a responsibility of the Department for Transport. Local authorities have considerable powers to reduce speed limits. Anyone who drives in London will have seen a great proliferation of 20 miles an-hour speed limits. I hope they are doing some good.

Water Forum, Kyoto
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representation they have made at the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto which started on 16th March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, at this moment, my colleague Elliot Morley is winging his way to Japan to take part in the forum in Kyoto. He will take the message from the UK Government that Kyoto will be an important opportunity to focus on implementing
240
the plans that were agreed for water and sanitation at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg last year.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and hope that the conference will deliver real practical results, rather than descending into an expensive talking shop, as the World Summit did last year. Like all Members, I recognise the importance of clean water supplies in preventing the spread of sickness and disease in poor countries. Is the noble Lord aware of the UN estimates that 5 million Iraqis lack access to safe water and sanitation? Does he agree that all conceivable and reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that military action does not disrupt the water and electricity supplies that the civilian population depends on?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the first part of the question, Johannesburg has achieved rather more than the noble Baroness gives it credit for. One of its achievements was agreement on the sanitation strategy. As for the situation in Iraq, the military tactics will be decided by the authorities there. However, the question of reconstruction is very central to Her Majesty's Government's concerns. I believe that the House will soon have a chance to debate that issue on a Statement.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, given that the House is about to see the amount of regulation that a privatised water industry requires to ensure that the less well off in society can afford water, do the UK Government support the inclusion of water in the General Agreement on the Trade in Services currently being considered by the European Union?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, England and Wales are fairly unique in having a fully privatised water and sanitation system. The trade in water services as such—as distinct from the services of water companies, which is slightly different—is dealt with separately in the European context. Nevertheless, in the world context, the role of the private sector in supplying water particularly to the third world has to be mobilised as much as aid and public funds to deliver sanitation and water to many millions of the world's population.

Animal Carcasses: Disposal
3.1 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will place a moratorium on the European Union animal by-products regulation relating to the disposal of animal carcasses until such time as adequate collection and disposal facilities are in place and accessible to the farming community.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government will not be seeking a moratorium relating to the disposal of

241
animal carcasses. The collection and disposal industries advise that there is already sufficient capacity within the existing infrastructure to deal with the estimated additional quantities of fallen stock arising from the ban on on-farm burial.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that dead farm animals have been buried for the past two millennia in Britain? Given the current problems which the farming unions predict will result in chaos after the 1st May deadline, will he take urgent action to provide a free disposal service and a dispensation for burial for remote upland areas in Wales, south-west England and the north of England?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, farm burial has been a feature of farming for longer than I can remember— two millennia is almost certainly correct. However, it presents environmental problems for watercourses and in terms of animal disease, which is why the European legislation was introduced. The animal byproducts regulation will apply from 1st May. As I indicated the other day in response to a different Question, the Government have been trying since last April to discuss the issue with the industry in order to try to establish a system of collection and disposal. The capacity is there, as I said in my initial Answer, but the industry is reluctant to put any of its own resources into providing that disposal system. So any failure to have a fully operational system as from 1st May lies at the door of the industry, not the Government.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, why is it permissible for human beings to be buried but not animals?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, by and large, human beings are buried in coffins and in land that has been limed. That prevents the type of seepage about which we are concerned that occurs when there is a substantial quantity of animal burial. If the same precautions had to be taken for animal burial as for human burial, the cost to farmers would be considerably greater than that required by the directive.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that incineration has proved a respectful and successful way of' disposing of human remains, would it not be one of the best ways of disposing of animal remains?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, incineration is possible under the regulation. What is not possible is on-farm burial.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, a number of those who farm the hill and upland areas in places such as Dumfriesshire will be very disappointed by the Minister's Answer. The moratorium would, I believe, be a suitable way of filling in the period between what is available and what is not available. Since the local hunt has been disbanded, we have had no real service to remove fallen stock. I have just come from a meeting at a fish firm on a river in the
242
south of England. It has exactly the same problems, with no way of getting rid of fallen fish stock. Can the noble Lord help in this area?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have discussed the issue with the various elements of the industry, and both the collection organisations and the disposal organisations have always indicated that there is sufficient capacity to cope with the additional problem. The issue is how it is organised and who pays for it. The Government are prepared to put forward £30 million towards the estimated £50 million cost. But some of that cost has to rest on the farmers themselves. Any failure to have the system fully in place as of 1st May rests very much with the farming organisations.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, at the end of October, the Minister said that he would urgently examine the issue in the hope of finding a solution. Is he aware that, come 1st May, in practical terms, there will not be the facilities to uplift fallen stock and that farmers will not be allowed to bury the stock on their farms? What answer should he give farmers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the answer that I would give to farmers—and I think that it probably needs to be communicated directly to farmers rather than through their organisations at the moment—is that the facilities are there. The way of organising the facilities would also be there were the farming industry to accept some element of the costs. The TSE disposal arrangements would be made available for that duty: that is the £30 million and the small additional sum that the Government would be prepared to provide to set up such a system. However, the farming industry itself, through its representatives, is refusing to have even the minimum levy to ensure an industrial contribution. It is not a question of logistics or of the facilities not being available. It is a question of the industry being prepared to take its responsibilities seriously.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it may be a requirement that human bodies be buried in coffins in consecrated land and in land belonging to public graveyards, but is the Minister certain that the same rules apply to people buried in private land?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, If am not sure what customs prevail in the area of Avebury. However, in recent years, by and large, private burial has had to be approved by the authorities. I accept that the requirements for such burial may not be exactly the same as those for burial in consecrated land and graveyards, but they are nevertheless considerably more precautionary than those for burying sheep half-way up a hill—where the possibility of seepage into the watercourse is very substantial and is therefore a much higher risk than any form of human burial of which I am aware.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare my interest as a livestock farmer. The Minister mentioned the £30 million that DEFRA currently spends. When the

243
Minister in another place used that figure, he said that it was for transmissible spongiform encephalopathy monitoring under the over-30-months scheme and for a variety of other reasons. If the ministry is going to pay for the collection of all adult cattle, which falls within the provisions of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy regulations, how much money will be left over for organising the start-up of collections?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I will not try to follow the noble Duke in spelling out the regulations. The collection system already exists under the TSE regulations and it applies only to cattle. The point is that, under these regulations, we are extending the same facility to the collection of fallen stock including animals other than cattle. Therefore, the facility will be sufficient, provided that it is topped up by the other £20 million that we are seeking and provided also that a communications system is established. In addition, there is the facility for on-farm incineration.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister really serious when he says that there is no derogation for hill farms? Is a hill farmer supposed to carry an old ewe down to the farm from a high hill and then spend goodness knows how much on having it collected by lorry when for generations such animals have either been buried or left to lie, and the water in the Highland hills is the purest you can find?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a potential derogation for the remotest areas for obvious reasons. But as regards hill farming generally, it is in precisely those areas where burial is most likely to lead to problems in watercourses. It would therefore be illogical to exempt all hill farms from the regulation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as I have a farm. Does the Minister agree that hunt kennels do a useful job in this respect, even though it is very expensive if they collect carcasses? They charge about £50 to £70 per animal if they collect. Does he also agree that on-farm burning is not allowed under the regulation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on-farm incineration is allowed if it abides by the overall biosecurity rules, although one cannot bring fallen stock on to a farm from elsewhere. Historically, hunt kennels have played a major role in this respect, although that has been more limited in recent years as a result of the TSE regulations. If kennels are to continue to play a role in that regard, from 1st May they will have to comply with what are effectively the same regulations as apply to knackers.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that 1p on or off the value of the euro is worth £100 million either way to British agriculture? The euro has strengthened considerably recently. Will farmers be able to cover the £20 million costs as a result of that strengthening of the euro?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, farmers have benefited from the recent appreciation of the euro against the
244
pound. However, I believe that if the noble Lord were in a more generous mood vis-à-vis his farming colleagues, would recognise that for many years the value of sterling against the euro moved in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, more money is available in that regard than was the case last year.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the regulation apply to animals which are pets?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the provisions concerning on-farm burial will apply to all animals on farms.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Sexual Offences Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 75,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 76 to 82,

Schedule 2,

lauses 83 to 103,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 104 to 124,

Schedule 4,

Clause 125,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 126 to 128.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Iraq
3.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat the reply that my honourable friend Mike O'Brien gave today in response to an urgent Question in the House of Commons on humanitarian issues in Iraq. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has asked me to reply to the important Question about the way in which we tackle the crisis in Iraq. The Government strongly welcome the fourth report of the Select Committee on International Development which was presented to the House a week ago. We shall give a detailed response to its various recommendations in due course. However, one of the crucial matters that it raises is the way in which the Government would move forward in the immediate post-conflict situation to try to resolve some of the humanitarian

245
issues, and especially whether we would seek a United Nations resolution —or, indeed, more than one—to take the process forward.
"I confirm that we shall seek a further resolution to deal with the humanitarian issues. We shall try to transfer the oil-for-food programme to the United Nations Secretary-General to enable him to keep the process functioning and use UN facilities to do that. We shall also seek a new UN resolution to provide authority for reconstruction and development work and a proper mandate for any interim authority that is likely to operate in the territory of Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed. We shall also try to ensure the rapid delivery of humanitarian aid to affirm Iraq's territorial integrity and allow for UN sanctions to be lifted, thus enabling food and other necessary items to arrive.
"We shall also enable an international reconstruction programme to facilitate the use of oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and to endorse a post-conflict administration in Iraq which will lead to a representative government that would uphold human rights and rule of law for all Iraqis".
My Lords, that concludes the reply.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the urgent Question in another place. We appreciate that the Secretary of State is on her way to the United Nations in New York to seek a fresh Security Council resolution and we wish her every success in her mission.
The overarching question raised by the Select Committee in its very good and comprehensive report is the lack of preparedness of the international community to cope with the humanitarian consequences of war with Iraq. The Secretary of State issued a Written Statement last Thursday which fell far short of addressing the 23 conclusions and recommendations in the Select Committee report. As it states on page 2 of the report, in the first stages of any conflict the military forces will have primary responsibility for the initial delivery of humanitarian assistance. Is the Minister aware of the concern of NGOs about the blurring of responsibility between military action and humanitarian relief? What is being done to improve information sharing with NGOs and to co-ordinate UK and US aid agencies? Who is coordinating work with the military—DfID, the MoD, USAID, the US Department of Defense or the UN?
The noble Baroness mentioned the oil-for-food programme. It is reported that the oil-for-food programme, which provides 60 per cent of the Iraqi population with food aid, has already been suspended. What assessment has DfID made of how to substitute food relief on such a large scale?
Given the early responsibility the military may bear for humanitarian relief. we understand that the Ministry of Defence has been granted an additional £50 million for this purpose. Does that indicate that the MoD will take the lead on the humanitarian side in the early stages?
246
The Minister mentioned contributing to the reconstruction. What estimate have the Government made of the total sum required to finance a meaningful post-war reconstruction of Iraq and for how many years do they estimate the programme will run?
In her ministerial statement the Secretary of State concluded that,
"the overall level of preparedness of the international community to cope with the humanitarian challenges which may lie ahead in Iraq is limited and this involves serious risk".
How do the Government intend to manage those risks and encourage other members of the international community to play a more significant role?
In paragraph 26 of the report on internal conflict, we are most concerned that the question to prevent further bloodshed be addressed. That may well be as important as the food aid. Can the noble Baroness assure us that that is being taken into consideration?
The International Development Select Committee concluded that it is as yet not convinced that there is, to use the Prime Minister's words,
"a humanitarian plan that is every hit as viable and well worked out as a military plan".
We wholeheartedly agree with that conclusion.
If the wider war on terrorism is to succeed in the long term, it is crucial that we do not forfeit vital international support by pursuing a war against Saddam Hussein without a comprehensive humanitarian strategy for helping the innocent Iraqi people.
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I should like to thank the opposition spokesperson on international development in another place for putting this Question and the Minister for repeating the reply in this House.
Although Clare Short made a statement on the International Development Select Committee's report, it was brief and raised more questions than it answered. Neither did we get answers on many of these points in last night's debate, although the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said that she would write to a number of noble Lords on the matter. The very fact that she did not have the answers at her fingertips, which she usually does, shows how far behind we are in responding to the needs outlined in the Select Committee's report. Although in general it might be fair to allow the Government some time to respond to such a paper, this is clearly not such an occasion. It is clear that little systematic planning has occurred for either the immediate consequences of the war or its aftermath. That clearly reflects the way in which the conflict has come about. Unlike in Afghanistan, where there was international agreement on action and planning could occur in the UN among participating countries, NGOs and others, there has been no such consensus this time. Where there is no consensus on moving to war, it is difficult to plan for its aftermath.
There have been many complaints from both sides of the Atlantic about lack of information, coordination and money, and I have a number of questions to put to the Minister. The Government have made it clear—we welcome it—that they wish the

247
UN to take the lead. Following what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, I want to ask more about what resolutions will be required for the UN to have a mandate to take action in such areas. When do the Government think that those can be implemented? The Minister in the Commons thought that there could be a resolution for food distribution within days, but was less certain about resolutions on wider humanitarian consequences.
Will the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, explain in more detail? Do the Government expect the resolutions to pass easily? Do they anticipate opposition from any countries, and if so which? How do they propose to overcome the bitterness of the past few weeks and months? How do they counter the arguments of those who feel that we have moved without full international support towards the war, and so the British Government and the Americans should bear the cost of subsequent reconstruction?
Will the Minister tell us to what extent the US shares the British Government's view of the UN's role, given the Americans' current in-house planning? What resources are to be brought to bear on the US to help to fund aid and reconstruction, in the light of the statement by Donald Rumsfeld that Iraq's reconstruction could be funded from its oil wealth so as not to be a drain on the US? What are the Government doing to ensure that the US works through the UN? Or will the Americans feel that it is acceptable to award contracts only to their own companies, funding them through Iraq's oil revenues? Given the possible reluctance of the EU to contribute, as expressed by Chris Patten the other day even though the EU is a leading contributor in Afghanistan, will the Minister say who is attending tomorrow's European Council? Will that issue be on the agenda?
What are the Government doing to ensure that aid is not seen as a further arm of the military? That point has already been mentioned. Who is leading on that issue in the British Government? We also note that the Chancellor has promised only £10 million to DfID, but £50 million to the Ministry of Defence for that task. Extra money is clearly needed, but who administers it is very important. Can the Minister assure us that, unlike in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Kosovo, aid money will not come from the DfID budget, which is meant for the very poor? How will the Secretary of State be in a position to defend her department's budget in her current weakened circumstances?
I note that the Foreign Office Minister answering the question in the Commons spoke of the Government's "intention" not to draw on DfID funds. However, he then added the cryptic statement: "However, we also want to ensure that we deal with our responsibilities to the people of Iraq". Does the noble Baroness agree that that could mean that they intend to draw on DfID's coffers? I hear from the answer in the Commons that there are two staff from DfID advising the military on humanitarian and human rights issues. Does she think that an adequate staff?
248
Two thirds of Iraq's population receives food aid, the biggest such programme in the world. Before the UN was told to pull out its workers, what plans were made for food to continue to reach the population? How widespread is that food expected to be, and how soon will it run out? What plans do the Government have for the security, political and judicial vacuums that must surely follow the conflict? Those matters also have to be addressed in the humanitarian context.
I welcome the Prime Minister's statement at Prime Minister's Questions today that, so far as Iraq is concerned, "We have to stay in for the long term". Can the Minister put a likely time on that involvement and a possible cost, and can she assure us that it will not go the same way as the pledge that the Prime Minster made to the people of Afghanistan?
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would like to thank both noble Baronesses for their responses. Perhaps I should say something about the structure and the amount of money initially, because there is a degree of confusion in the House.
We have committed some £20 million to immediate preparation. That is for planning. Some £of it has gone to the UN agencies to help them to prepare for any possible immediate humanitarian post-conflict situation. The DfID has earmarked a further £60 million for humanitarian operations, which would come from the DfID reserve. In addition, UK forces will have £30 million for humanitarian purposes in the first month. That will be for ensuring sanitation, food and shelter and so on. There is an additional £10 million for quick-impact projects that would come outside humanitarian issues. That would cover, for example, putting roofs on schools or building roads. I hope that that helps to clarify the amounts of money so far allocated.
A number of questions were asked about structure and the number of people involved. The noble Baroness said that only two people from the DfID were currently working on such issues with the MoD. That is not the case. Two people have gone out and are working specifically in Kuwait and Qatar. In addition, we have MoD, FCO and DfID officials working on the issues in the UK and in the region. We have constant contact with our colleagues in the United States, and have discussed the issues over a long period. We are in contact with all the relevant UN agencies and have a weekly meeting with NGOs to brief them on sensitive information so that they are as aware as we are of the context in which they might have to work. A great deal of consultation is going on, which I hope will go some way to alleviate the concern raised in the House.
I shall deal with some of the specific questions raised. The Select Committee on International Development published its report only a week ago. My right honourable friend Clare Short made a lengthy ministerial statement on 13th March, in which she made it absolutely clear that we would respond to each of the conclusions in that report. It is a little unfair to say that we have not taken time to respond to a

249
number of very detailed recommendations from a Select Committee that has taken a great deal of time to consider the issues. Noble Lords will know that we work extremely hard in terms of our commitment on humanitarian issues to make sure that we get things right, not only in the UK but with other colleagues. Some of those criticisms are a little unfair.
I shall talk about responsibilities, especially in the immediate aftermath. In the event of conflict and the occupation of Iraqi territory by the UK military, the occupying forces would have humanitarian responsibilities under the Hague and Geneva Conventions. It is likely that, in the first stages of any conflict, UN agencies and NGOs would not be fully operational. If that were the case, military forces would then have the primary responsibility for the initial delivery of humanitarian assistance. They are also likely to play a key role in the longer term in providing a secure environment that would then allow NGOs and humanitarian agencies to operate. That is the scenario for which we are planning. I hope that that answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings.
I also hope that I answered her questions about information sharing with NGOs. We are in constant contact with our colleagues in the United States. My honourable friend Mike O'Brien was there last week and discussed those issues. My right honourable friend Clare Short left today and will talk to Kofi Annan, the IMF, the World Bank and other UN agencies about those issues. However, she will not be in New York negotiating a new resolution. We want new resolutions, but that is not the role of my right honourable friend.
I was asked whether the oil-for-food programme is already suspended. It would be suspended when there were no Iraqi government. That is why we see as a priority the need to secure a Security Council resolution that would enable the programme to continue in the absence of a functioning Iraqi government. We envisage a temporary transfer to some kind of impartial figure, such as the UN Secretary-General, to give it authority to enter into contracts for food and essential humanitarian supplies. The purpose of that would be to use the considerable resources and existing supply networks of the oil-for-food programme in support of the immediate humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq.
We are also discussing with partners and allies the need for a further UN Security Council resolution that would provide an overall UN mandate for transitional arrangements. That might include a UN assistance mission for Iraq. We are considering two separate approaches: oil for food and reconstruction under the aegis of the UN. I cannot tell noble Lords how long it will take to get those resolutions through. As I said, we are in discussions with allies on that.
I was asked about the total sum that would be allocated to any reconstruction effort. It is impossible to tell. We are not now at that point and we will have to consider the matter. I was also asked about timing and the fact that my noble friend Lady Symons was
250
unable to go into much detail on those issues last night. I must say that my noble friend spent more than 25 minutes replying to the debate last night. A number of issues were raised, including reconstruction, and it was impossible for her to spend any more time going into those issues. She also undertook to write to noble Lords.
We are engaged in trying to develop a comprehensive humanitarian strategy. That is extraordinarily complicated, as noble Lords will appreciate. My right honourable friend Clare Short made it clear in her Written Statement to the House of Commons on 13th March that we would have liked the planning to have been further advanced. Having said that, we are working as hard as we can to ensure that all our planning is in place.
With respect to the specific question on the European Council, I understand that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will attend that meeting.
The final question was on USAID and the contracts that it will award. USAID made it clear in discussions with my honourable friend Mike O'Brien that in the initial phases it anticipates that the majority of contracts would go to United States organisations because it already has a relationship with them but it anticipates that a large percentage of subcontracting would go beyond the United States.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam Association and a former director of Oxfam.
Although I welcome this helpful Statement, does my noble friend agree that, apart from the immediate humanitarian and repair work to be done, if the peace is to be won, massive expenditure will be involved? Can she assure the House that strategic thinking internationally about the amount of money required for that task is taking place? Does she accept that there is a real challenge to be faced in the humanitarian nongovernmental organisations in this country? Their history and record of effectiveness rests on their impartiality and objectivity. It is therefore absolutely essential that there is a UN-led operation in this context so that they are not put in the position of not being able to do anything or being able to operate only by getting alongside people who are the centre—we must face this, whether we like it or not—of a great deal of controversy in the world.
In that context, does my noble friend accept that strong leadership of the UN operation in New York—in terms of inter-agency co-operation—and in the field will be essential? Can she also assure us—there are real anxieties about this—that funds will not be diverted from other essential development and humanitarian tasks elsewhere in the world and that people will not be syphoned off from other commitments elsewhere in the world to work in Iraq? There are indications that that is already happening.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have made it absolutely clear that there will be large reconstruction costs. We

251
have no idea what those costs will be but the international community will have to work on that. It is important that we in this House remember that despite the differences across the world community about taking action by force to disarm Saddam Hussein, there is a degree of agreement about the importance of ensuring that the Iraqi people do not continue to suffer. Noble Lords can take from that the fact that a wider international coalition, as it were, will come together with respect to these humanitarian issues.
As I have already said, we are working very hard in terms of taking forward two different resolutions under the UN. I refer to the Oil for Food programme and the wider reconstruction efforts. In that regard, I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Judd that strong leadership in the UN and in the field will be important.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that representatives of humanitarian agencies at a meeting last week emphasised not only that military action would lead to the immediate interruption of massive food aid to the Iraqi people but also that, if military action led to the destruction of generators and power plants, the fact that the Iraqis to a very large extent rely on piped water means that considerable supplies of drinking water will be required throughout Iraq? Will the Minister confirm that planning is in hand to take that into account?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that planning is taking both of those issues into account. On the possibility of the interruption to food supplies, DfID has already pre-positioned significant amounts of supplies, as has the World Food Programme, which has also indicated that it may need additional resources to pre-position more food. We indicated that we will contribute resources to that. Water and sanitation are clearly a priority—they are a priority in the immediate aftermath of any conflict.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, bearing in mind the understandable problem experienced last night by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in answering all the questions raised, can the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, say whether her attention has been drawn to an article written just over three weeks ago in the New York Times, describing what was said to be the new office of post-war planning? The article stated that the post of director had been refused by David Kay, a former chief nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq, who, it was said, had considered taking up the post in this new body. He was quoted as complaining that promoting democracy had too little priority in the new office and that the mission itself was under-financed and poorly staffed. Can the Minister begin to deny that the approach to this problem has been too little, too late and dilatory?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the Office of Reconstruction and
252
Humanitarian Affairs in the US Department of Defense. Is that the reference that the noble Lord is making?
Lord Jopling: My Lords, it is a body quoted as being the Bush Administration's new office of post-war planning, which was set up,
"to assess the government's plans for securing and rebuilding Iraq if Saddam is overthrown".
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is the department to which I thought the noble Lord was referring. We have secondees there from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from the Department for International Development. My honourable friend Mike O'Brien was in New York last week talking through some of the immediate reconstruction and humanitarian issues with the United States Government. As we speak, my right honourable friend Clare Short is on her way to the United States to continue those discussions.
Clearly, in the immediate aftermath of any conflict, reconstruction and humanitarian issues will need a great deal of co-ordination. That is where this department comes in. But, as I have already said in this House, we shall be working hard to bring this issue together under a UN umbrella because we believe it is important that the co-ordination of any reconstruction and humanitarian effort falls under a UN umbrella.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether some effort will be made to ensure that co-ordination with the non-governmental organisations is set up at a very early stage so that we avoid the somewhat unseemly wrangling that went on in respect of Afghanistan between the non-governmental organisations and the coalition allies due to a lack of proper co-ordinating machinery? Secondly, is the noble Baroness prepared to say that at the European Council at the end of this week the Government will be working to obtain a firm commitment that the European Union will make a major contribution to humanitarian work and reconstruction in Iraq?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that co-ordination at an early stage is important. That is why we have held regular meetings with the NGOs within a UK context and have shared information with them. We should like to see the co-ordination handled through the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. But clearly we would need an agreed United Nations resolution to enable us to see that process put in place, and we shall be working towards that. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we shall want as wide a group as possible to contribute to any humanitarian effort post any conflict. In that respect, the role of the European Union will be very important.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, while I am sure that the whole House appreciates the systematic and comprehensive approach of the Government to this disaster for the people of Iraq, there must remain some concern about the other calls on the resources of the

253
Department for International Development. Can my noble friend reassure me that the cause of sub-Saharan Africa will not be underfunded as a result of plans to help Iraq?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that the question of my noble friend Lady Whitaker was raised also by my noble friend Lord Judd. As noble Lords know, the DfID budget is set against very clear priorities which have been established over a period of time. We have long-term strategic partnerships with a number of countries. For example, we have a 10-year partnership with Rwanda and are considering a six-year partnership with the Government of Uganda. I can confirm to the House that the priority that we give to a range of development issues will continue.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, my question for the Minister centres on the need to take advantage of opportunities being developed for humanitarian aid in other countries in the Middle East. Earlier today, I was very encouraged by a meeting that I had with representatives of the Shaare Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem, who described efforts that they were making to work with a major hospital in Amman in Jordan and in Ramallah in the Palestinian territories. They were developing plans jointly to provide humanitarian aid of a medical type in a co-ordinated way for the survivors of conflicts in Iraq and other places in the Middle East. Will it be possible for the UK to work with those organisations to support them and others which are working in a co-ordinated Operation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will know that we are making a major humanitarian effort in the Middle East region overall. Clearly, a key element in our humanitarian effort here will be support for refugees. I take my noble friend's point, and we shall consider ways in which we can achieve better co-ordination in what we do. I shall certainly take back the specific point about the organisation referred to by my noble friend.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that at the time of the previous Gulf War, practically the entire British effort was paid for by contributions from the countries in the Gulf that most closely neighboured Kuwait and by Kuwait itself? Is the noble Baroness aware that, in addition to seeking maximum contributions from the EU, if Saddam Hussein is overthrown, some of the primary beneficiaries will be those adjoining countries? Although, from the point of view of timing, I do not necessarily expect a definitive answer now, I hope that firm representations will be made to those countries, which are not exactly impoverished by the current level of the oil price.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord King. I am sure that it is one that has not been missed by my colleagues in government.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very warmly for all that she has said today
254
and for the Statement made by the Secretary of State last week. I also thank her for the reassurances that she has given to the non-governmental organisations. Can she, together with her colleagues, give an undertaking that we shall have regular and full Statements on the progress of the humanitarian work? Remembering what the Prime Minister said, that may be of almost equal importance to the military aspects of the war. Therefore, it would be helpful to this House and another place to have such Statements.
Of course, the UN resolutions are of the utmost importance and will give much confidence to sections of the public who have not been fully behind the war. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take extremely seriously the question of the UN resolution and that they will be willing to announce any progress on it.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. Lord Sandwich, for his remarks. Of course, I shall undertake to keep the House fully briefed. I believe that we have a good record of working to ensure that noble Lords are kept aware of all the developments in respect of this situation and we shall continue to do so. Again, I entirely take the point raised by the noble Earl about the importance of UN resolutions, and we shall continue to work to obtain those.

Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill
3.49 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Most yn): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships know, the Government were obliged to suspend devolved government on 15th October last year, in the aftermath of concern about continuing paramilitary activity. Obviously there had been a breakdown of trust on both sides of the community which made the effective functioning of devolved government impossible at that time.
Since then both governments have engaged with the parties—more importantly. the parties have engaged with each other—in trying to promote a step forward; that is, the restoration of the devolved Assembly and the implementation of the rest of the Belfast agreement.
At the recent meetings at Hillsborough, we believe that the two governments and the pro-agreement parties arrived at a shared understanding of how we could move forward to a lasting and durable settlement. The key issues are not secret. At their core is an end to paramilitarism and the stability of the institutions. It may be that great—we shall see—even historic progress was made in the Hillsborough talks. The ball is now in the parties' court. They need time to reflect on the issue with their colleagues. Realistically, that period of reflection could not be fruitful if the election date remains at 1st May. That would mean dissolution of the Assembly and the election campaign getting underway in two days' time. We concluded, therefore, that we should postpone the election for a period of 28 days, in order to give time for that further reflection.

255
I turn briefly to the provisions of the Bill as it contains only two clauses, the second of which is the Title. It provides for the postponement of the election date for 28 days to 29th May and for dissolution on 28th April. There is therefore a marginal reduction of the formal election timetable from 25 days to 20 days. That will not affect other aspects of the timetable, such as deadlines for applications for absent votes, which will be carefully scrutinised.
The Bill also includes technical provisions to take account of the impact on expenditure limits of moving the election. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.51 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for outlining, in his usual brief and succinct manner, the provisions of this two-clause Bill before the House today.
Let me make one thing clear at the outset: we do not like the postponement of elections and we do not approach this measure lightly. Extending deadlines is, as a matter of principle, a bad thing. It devalues the significance or importance of deadlines in the future. It encourages people to believe that all deadlines are negotiable rather than real. That is even more the case when the deadline we are considering is for an election, the date of which is already set out in law. So the Bill before the House today is not something with which we are comfortable—and not for the first time in Northern Ireland affairs.
The Lord Privy Seal outlined the significant amount of progress made in the talks at Hillsborough a fortnight ago. More importantly, the private briefings which I and others of your Lordships have had with the Secretary of State and the Lord Privy Seal—for which I am most grateful—lead me to believe that there is a genuine possibility that a deal can be done and the political institutions at Stormont restored.
It is on the basis of giving any emerging deal a chance, and the fact that the delay is only for four weeks, that the Official Opposition is not opposing the Bill. We are also clear that this will be the only occasion on which we shall accept such a postponement. This must be a one off. We cannot keep on postponing elections indefinitely just because they become an inconvenience. Elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly must take place on 29th May 2003, whatever situation we might be in.
It is worth reminding ourselves why the Bill has become necessary. Just under five years ago on Good Friday, the Belfast agreement was hailed across the world—although I accept not by the DUP and some of the smaller unionist parties—as representing a new beginning for Northern Ireland. It was meant to offer, after 30 years of the most savage and evil terrorist onslaught, a genuine and lasting peace and real political stability. It was regarded as nothing less than
256
an historic opportunity to draw a line under the past and provide the basis for a better future for all the people of Northern Ireland.
I can assure her Majesty's Government that the Conservative Party continues to believe that the agreement remains the best vehicle for achieving those objectives. Despite the suspensions and some technical problems, the devolved institutions have generally worked quite well. The principle of consent to any change in the status of Northern Ireland as part of the Union is more widely accepted than ever before. The security situation has improved beyond recognition.
Yet, for all that, confidence in the agreement has steadily declined over the past five years, despite the fact that most people, including unionists, still want it to work. It is not difficult to see why that has happened. At the heart of the agreement, as the noble and learned Lord said, for all the complex drafting and so-called constructive ambiguities, there was a fairly straightforward deal: in return for the establishment of an inclusive government and cross-border institutions, in addition to a series of internal reforms within Northern Ireland, there would be an end to all forms of paramilitary violence. In other words, the war would be over.
Unfortunately, neither peace nor the agreement have been delivered because one party has been in serial breach of its obligations under the agreement. That party is of course Sinn Fein/IRA. We have had the Florida gun-running; Colombia; the Castlereagh break-in; targeting and recruitment; beatings, shootings and murder; the orchestration of street violence; the failure to meet decommissioning deadlines; and the Stormontgate spy ring at the heart of government. Those are all breaches of the ceasefire—although not accepted as such by Her Majesty's Government—and the agreement.
The main responsibility for making progress now rests with those who have so far been responsible for frustrating it. We now need what have become known as "acts of completion" and we need to be clear what those acts arc. There must be certainty beyond doubt that the IRA's war really is over. There must be complete decommissioning of all illegal arms and explosives, verified by General de Chastelain and carried out in a manner designed "to maximise public confidence", as the IRA itself promised as long ago as May 2000. There must be an end to all forms of paramilitary activity. And there must be clear evidence of disbandment as verified by the new monitoring body of the kind that has been mentioned in newspaper reports over the past few days.
To coin a phrase—the IRA really has to go away. Only then can we reasonably expect the Executive and Assembly to be up and running, carrying out its full range of functions. In other words—as the Government must make clear—everything has to be contingent and conditional on what the republican movement actually delivers and not what it promises. There must be no question of the Government reverting to their previous, failed and highly dangerous tactic of offering up unilateral concessions in advance and getting nothing in return. We have consistently urged the Government to

257
work towards a comprehensive settlement, with clear linkages and sanctions for those who are in breach of their obligations. Instead they have relied on side deals and what the Prime Minister himself described in Belfast last October as "inch-by-inch" negotiations.
Now, at long last, and after much urging by us, Her Majesty's Government finally appear to have seen sense. The shared understanding that the Prime Minister and Mr Ahern intend to present in a few weeks' time looks as though it is a genuine attempt to secure that comprehensive settlement, leading to the full implementation of the agreement, for which we have been calling. If that is now the Government's approach they will have our full support. However, should Her Majesty's Government revert to their policy of offering up concessions in advance, before the completion of decommissioning and an end to all paramilitary activity, they will forfeit our support.
There has been much discussion of the issue of sanctions, but if parties fulfil their obligations, the sanctions will not be used and the issue becomes irrelevant. According to seemingly well-sourced reports, the Government will replace the suspension power with an independent monitoring body that can make a determination to the Secretary of State, who would then have available to him a range of sanctions, including being able to suspend Ministers or a party from the Executive.
That is a power that the Conservative Party has been urging on the Secretary of State since the summer of 2001. It is more than nine years since the Conservative government, along with the then Irish Government, published the historic Downing Street declaration that in some ways marked the formal launch of what has become known as the peace process; and it is nearly live years since the Belfast agreement held out the prospect of a peaceful, stable and prosperous future for all the people of Northern Ireland. Now is surely the time to make the final moves on the basis for which the people voted in 1998.
A return to the sterile and stale politics of the past is as unthinkable as a return to violence and terror. The days of an armed peace are over. The only way to go is forward. The time has come to take the final steps to implement the agreement. As the only intention behind the Bill is to facilitate that process by delaying the Assembly elections for four weeks, we support the Bill.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord for his introduction to the Bill. I shall echo what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said at the outset of his speech. I, too, emphasise that we accept the change of date of election to the Assembly with considerable reluctance. It should be a firmly entrenched principle that fixed election dates should be tampered with only in the most extreme cases. In one sense, postponing the date by four weeks is neither there nor there, but it is a most unfortunate precedent, which I trust will not have to be employed again.
258
Principle apart, I wonder whether the short delay is prudent. Sticking to 1st May may have concentrated the minds of the parties involved rather more than they have been. After all, there has been more than enough slippage and delay in implementing the Belfast agreement. If a four-week delay in elections facilitates the restoration of a necessary minimum of trust, we will not oppose that change of date, but elections must definitely be held on 29th May next. I was glad that that was confirmed by the Government when the Bill was considered two days ago in another place.
The Government's view is that they will be able to publish a more or less agreed statement on how the peace process can be advanced in early April. It is vital that on that occasion there is no fudging or equivocation on the part of any of the self-proclaimed pro-agreement parties. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on that.
That means that the agreed package can be advanced only if the requisite acts of completion have occurred. Will the Government publish the package if they have not? I certainly predict that, without acts of completion, further consideration of the proposed police Bill will be placed in jeopardy.
Further, what precisely is to be done about problems of fugitives, or on-the-runs? What process is likely to be devised to deal with that thorny issue? Separate, but not altogether unrelated, is the problem of those who have been exiled by paramilitaries and forced to move away from Northern Ireland. What plans are afoot to allow those exiles to return and be permitted to live in peace and tranquillity? What guarantees can they be given?
Finally, and equally important in restoring trust, can the noble and learned Lord tell us how the Government propose to deal with the question of community relations? Northern Ireland is a divided society. That was demonstrated again by the violence in north and east Belfast during the weekend. Society in Northern Ireland is perhaps more segregated now than it was before the Good Friday agreement was signed. There is a deep-seated lack of trust, and the continued sectarianism and segregation poses the greatest of threats to the peace process.
What are the Government doing to deal with that fundamental problem'? What are they doing actively to encourage de-segregation and promote integration within all aspects of society?
Although somewhat sceptical about the value of the four-week delay to elections to the Assembly, we on these Benches hope, for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland, that an agreed package will be forthcoming in the next couple of weeks, and that the requisite acts of completion will have taken place. But, if there is no general agreement, we are strongly of the view that elections must be held on 29th May. Let the people of Northern Ireland speak, and let there be a return to devolved government for the region.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, it is unfortunate that we are today debating a Bill that ought not to have been

259
necessary. As has been said, its effect will be to delay the forthcoming elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly by four weeks. In theory, that should not have too detrimental an effect on the democratic process in the Province. In reality, that will probably be the case. However, the message and impression that that delay sends out is a bad one for Northern Ireland. It suggests to the world yet again that Northern Ireland is a place apart within the United Kingdom.
On 1st May, when voters in Great Britain go to the polls to cast their ballots in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and local authorities, the people of Northern Ireland will be staying at home. That is a most disheartening state of affairs. I very much hope that such a situation never arises again.
So why is the delay necessary? Because, once again, the political process in Northern Ireland is in a state of paralysis while we wait for Sinn Fein/IRA finally to fulfil its commitments under the Belfast agreement. For almost five years, the republican movement has pontificated, postured and, on many occasions, strayed back to its old habits.
I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said: the latest suspension of the Province's devolved government came about following the discovery of the Sinn Fein/IRA-led spy ring at Stormont. Previous to that, we had the IRA break-in at Castlereagh police station; the arrest of three republicans in Colombia suspected of training FARC rebels; and charges of IRA gun-running from Florida. There have also been other incidents, of which many of your Lordships who do not come from Northern Ireland may not even be aware. Does that catalogue of illegality really prove the commitment of Sinn Fein/IRA to purely peaceful and democratic methods? I fear and think not.
Until now, we have had two acts of decommissioning from the IRA. We in the Ulster Unionist Party welcomed both. But still the republican movement could not help but go back to its old ways of murder, maiming and deception. Is it any wonder that the confidence of the unionist population in the Belfast agreement is at an all-time low? For the situation to be rectified and for the agreement itself to be saved, we need—to use our Prime Minster's phrase—final acts of completion from republicans. For unionists, that means an effective end to the IRA and all its evil ways.
It appears that the delay of the date for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections is meant to give Sinn Fein/ IRA an opportunity to prove to its doubters that it is moving towards that goal. Neither noble Lords nor I have any way of knowing whether it is likely to happen. I sincerely hope that it will. But, if it does not, the republican movement will have only itself to blame if the Belfast agreement collapses or, if the SDLP can summon the moral and political courage, the other political parties decide to move on without Sinn Fein.
I assure noble Lords that the Ulster Unionist Party was geared up for an election on 1st May and is very disappointed about the delay. When the elections take place on 29th May, I am sure that the fine array of Ulster Unionist candidates selected will do well for the
260
proud party that they, and I, represent. I only hope that, by that time, their wait and that of the voters of Northern Ireland will not have been in vain.
To conclude, although the details of the recent discussions at Hillsborough will not be published until the beginning of next month, we are already aware from media reports that Sinn Fein/IRA's biggest difficulty seems to be with the sanctions that would be imposed on any party found to operate outside the terms of the Belfast agreement. Surely, if Sinn Fein/ IRA is serious about turning its back on its evil ways of the past, it has nothing to fear from sanctions? Indeed, it should welcome them, given that it continues to accuse my party and the British Government of being in breach of our obligations. If the republican movement continues to oppose sanctions, we can only conclude that it believes it will fall foul of them at some point. This scenario does not bode well for the future; nor does it instil much confidence in the Government's decision to bring the Bill before your Lordships' House today.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, most noble Lords with any experience of Northern Ireland would not want to oppose this Bill because they believe that it is an attempt to bring democracy back into Northern Ireland. I am sure that, like myself, many noble Lords have many misgivings about the present state of politics in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords who attended meetings with the Leader of the House will be aware that I have expressed misgivings that we are to have elections now. Talks took place at Hillsborough between the political parties in Northern Ireland, in which the Government of the Republic were involved. We are told that everyone left those talks with "a shared understanding"—no one really knows. Many phrases that emerge from Northern Ireland negotiations leave us as wise as ever.
As I said then, decommissioning is the main issue to be resolved in Northern Ireland. Nobody in Northern Ireland, including the Catholic community, believes that the two acts of decommissioning that took place were in any way effective. Some very funny cartoons appeared in the press at the time. If General John de Chastelain, who lives in Canada, reads a column in the Irish Times saying that "P O'Neill" has issued a statement, he takes a plane to Northern Ireland for talks about decommissioning. That has happened twice.
I wish to know what was decommissioned, as do the people in Northern Ireland: how many guns, how many pounds or tons of Semtex? We do not know. If there is to be decommissioning, it must be visible. The public in Northern Ireland must see it, either through observers or on television. It occurred to me when I came into the House earlier that, now that Hans Blix has been relieved of his responsibilities in Iraq, he might find useful employment in Crossmaglen. We do not know whether the IRA is prepared to engage in decommissioning. That is one big problem that we will have to get over.

261
The other problem is on-the-runs. They say that in Northern Ireland we are very good at creating acronyms for different organisations. The term ODCs was used to describe ordinary decent criminals as distinct from paramilitaries. ODCs were just robbers who did not have guns. On-the-runs will be a big problem. I have just left a meeting in the Moses Room under the very able chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, at which many well-intentioned people discussed the problems of exiled people and what we should do with them. But it is legislation that will grapple with the problem, not those well-intentioned people. We cannot divorce the problem of exiles from all the other problems.
Noble Lords will remember the emotional debate that took place in this House about the "Disappeared", who were murdered by the IRA. The IRA undertook to indicate where the bodies could be found but quickly stopped after the first were located. Is there any way of making the IRA live up to the promises that it then made, as a result of which legislation was pushed through the House to absolutely no effect?
I had intended to ask this question at the meeting that I attended earlier, and, I will probably do so later: what do we do about exiles who also happen to be on the run? What about John White, the murderer who, with many of his cohorts, was chased out of Northern Ireland by the faction of the UDA led by Johnny Adair? Allegedly, he now lives in Scotland; but I hear that he is living in London. Is he to be treated as an exile or as an on-the-run chased out of Northern Ireland by a branch of a paramilitary organisation?
It is obvious from the debate in another place on Monday evening that many issues must be resolved before we can ever hope to get the Assembly up and working again. I said then to the Secretary of State that, unless those problems are resolved, it would be useless to bring the Assembly back into operation because all those troubles would be brought hack on to its Floor.
More than all the political parties in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein desperately wants the Assembly brought back again, because it gives it respectability and two Ministers in government. It wants the Assembly brought back as much as I did in 1974 at the time of the Sunningdale Agreement. Now is the time—perhaps the only time in recent years—when the British Government can tell Sinn Fein/IRA that the Assembly will not be brought back unless it fulfils the obligations that I mentioned. In the 10 years since the emergence of Sinn Fein, Unionists have had to make the concessions; Sinn Fein can make them now. If it wants to engage in politics in Northern Ireland, it should be prepared to make some of the concessions that I mentioned. The debate on Monday evening showed that there is still much work to be done before we can find agreement.
Will the statement by the Irish and British Governments on 29th March or at the beginning of April be the last line in these negotiations? Will it be on a take-it-or-leave-it basis? Will the Irish Government, the British Government and, somewhere on the fringes, the Americans have agreed the outcome of the
262
discussions that began in Hillsborough? Unless we find agreement before the elections, all the political parties in Northern Ireland will put forward their own agenda on the hustings. That will do nothing for peace in Northern Ireland. Unless we find a moduos operandi to resolve the problems before there is an election, that election will be worse than useless.
I support the postponement of the election. However, I do so with the proviso that both Governments and all the political parties in Northern Ireland should realise that bringing back that parliament is contingent on finding agreement among themselves.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, this is my first debate on the more general issues relating to Northern Ireland, as distinct from the debates on policing issues, for which many of your Lordships will remember me—perhaps not always fondly. I want to express my great affection for Northern Ireland and my commitment to do all that I can to help promote the peace that is so urgently needed.
It is with great reluctance that we on these Benches, like other noble Lords, accept the need for the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton made clear, we regard any interference with the normal democratic process as a serious matter. The decision to postpone the date of the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland must not be taken lightly. We are disappointed that it has not been possible, since the Assembly was suspended last October, for the parties and the Governments to finalise a package that would have enabled the Assembly to be reinstated.
At the time, we called upon the Government to convene all-party, round-table talks immediately. Perhaps, if more progress had been made earlier, there would have been no need for the Bill before us today. That said, we are reassured by the comments of the honourable Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. Des Browne, that it was a short, defined postponement and that there would not be any further changes to the date of the Assembly elections. The Explanatory Notes for the Bill helpfully remind us that the provisions apply to the ordinary general election poll on 29th May and not to any subsequent election. That is helpful. It denotes the fact that these are special circumstances and shows that in no way is it intended to use the postponement as a precedent for the future.
There has been a great deal of discussion, not least in the media, of the content of the package that the two Governments have proposed to the parties in Northern Ireland. My noble friend spoke of some of our concerns, but I must stress again the issue of on-the-runs, to which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also referred. A general amnesty for those who are on the run from justice is not acceptable. There must be a judicial element to any proposals to deal with the issue. Release must be on licence; justice must be seen to be done; and the concerns of victims must be properly addressed.

263
It has been said here and in another place that the end of paramilitarism and the acts of completion of which the Prime Minister has spoken are fundamental to making progress and to the prospects of the parties accepting the package that the Governments have proposed. That does not just mean decommissioning: it means an end to punishment attacks and intimidation and the lifting of the threat to those who have been exiled from their home by the paramilitaries. That is the over-arching context in which we must take the peace process forward. It is vital that we now see an end to all paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than an imperfect peace. I sincerely hope that, in the near future, we shall see real peace. It is long overdue. This short Bill deals with complex issues, but we fervently hope that the delay of four weeks will bring the big prize. If it does, it will have been worth it.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate. It is a short Bill, as we have all recognised, but we all know that what is proposed has many ramifications. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, first identified and expressed a principle that was assented to by all who spoke subsequently and with which I agree entirely. He said that no one wished as a matter of principle that the elections should be postponed. In a sense, as the noble Lord rightly said, the point is not the period of 28 days but postponement as a principle. I agree with all of your Lordships, all of whom concurred with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, spoke with his usual generosity of the benefit of private briefings. This Secretary of State and, before him, Dr Reid have always been willing to attend regular meetings at which there are, I think that it is fair to say, full and candid exchanges of views. I hope that, as the Secretary of State said, we can arrange another one in the next week or two. All noble Lords who spoke attend those briefings, and they are not a one-way street. The Secretary of State and I find the diversity of views expressed extremely helpful. The noble Lord also said that his party's view remained that the Belfast agreement, fully implemented, was the best hope for the future of Northern Ireland. I agree with that.
I shall not return to the question of postponement, as all of your Lordships are in agreement on it. However, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked specific questions about on-the-runs and fugitives. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked whether a particular individual, John White, would be an on-the-run or an enforced exile. That would depend on his circumstances. My recollection is that he has already been convicted, served his sentence and been allowed out, so he would not qualify as an on-the-run for that offence, although he might, in some circumstances, I suppose, qualify as an enforced exile. Life's irony being limitless, it seems to have been his own disenchanted colleagues who invited him to take up residence in Scotland, rather than remain in Belfast.
264
The question of the on-the-runs is important. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, spoke of it. There will have to be a formal process, but it would be more appropriate if I did not go into possible details at this stage. As all noble Lords who spoke reminded us, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State said that they hoped to publish the package in early April, which is very close now.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. asked some pointed questions about the future more generally, to which I am happy to respond. Last Friday, I had the great benefit and privilege of visiting the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland. The director, Avila Kilmurray—an extremely impressive woman, if I may say so—spoke of work falling into the categories that the noble Lord identified. Almost at random, I can list the following: work with marginalised young people—that is critically important—and with victims of the Troubles; neighbourhood regeneration in disadvantaged urban communities; work with women; work on the reintegration of politically motivated former prisoners—the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt; rural development, which, as the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Rogan, have reminded us many times in Grand Committee, should not be overlooked; peace building through community arts and culture; development work in areas of weak infrastructure; social justice and human rights work; and investing in health in disadvantaged communities. That is just a sample of a wide spectrum. If all those programmes are successful—even in part—it will offer some comfort for the future.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Fitt that decommissioning is of critical importance. None of the parties is in the slightest doubt about that.
In conclusion, I revert to what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said at the outset; it certainly chimed in my mind. He said that he thought that there was a genuine possibility. For myself, I must say that never, in the many years in which I have had a connection with Northern Ireland affairs, have I been in such a cautiously optimistic mood. I think that the time when the tide will turn is now.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Racism in Performing Arts
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Baberghrose to call attention to racism in the performing arts in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that it has not been long since an Unstarred Question on racism in the theatre was debated in this House. The subject of our debate today spans a wider area: the performing arts in general, including film, television, radio, music, opera and dance. Dominic Gray of Opera North has told me that he believes that "cultural diversity" in this branch of the arts might be a better way of putting it, being something positive and hopeful to embrace, rather than racism, as something to shun.

265
For decades there has been no real policy in this area. Indifference has prevailed and a pretence kept up that no problem exists. Objections have been habitually raised to black and Asian actors cast in roles which for years and sometimes for centuries, and for no good reason, have been traditionally white. But I believe that an optimistic attitude is now, on the whole, justified. Things have a long way to go and they are far from ideal, but it appears that, overall and with certain exceptions, companies, boards and managements are seriously addressing what they are beginning to recognise as a major problem throughout society.
Arts Council England has designated this year as the Year of Cultural Diversity—a project that will involve performances, seminars and publications. I have already mentioned Opera North. At present the company is working on a new production of Mozart's "The Magic Flute" with a multi-cultural company of principal singers and rehearsing towards main-stage performances in April, May and June of this year.
Opera North has commissioned a touring exhibition of visual art inspired by Verdi's "Requiem". One of the six pieces is by Farhad Ahrnia, an Iranian photographic artist. "Operaville", a work commissioned by Opera North for the Millennium Festival in 2000, tells the story of seven real-life families from Bradford, including Dominican, Indian, Ukrainian and Polish families. It has a multi-cultural orchestra and singers from diverse races performing the opera. Currently it is touring as a set of songs to venues in the North. A large-scale education programme is working on "The Magic Flute" with culturally diverse schools in Leeds, Oldham and Manchester.
Enormous issues affect the development of singers and musicians from some cultural backgrounds. For instance, for reasons of religion some groups are discouraged from performing in and attending live performances or from attending performances in the evening. I doubt whether any noble Lord would argue against the need to respect other people's religious integrity. Opportunities are problematic for many people, and they may start as early as primary school. In 2001, Opera North, which describes itself as "colour blind". worked with 50 children in Dewsbury in a project focused on Puccini's "Madam Butterfly", bringing together Asian classical musicians and singers; the children and artists together producing their own version of the story. One hundred children were invited from local schools to rehearsals and then to the opening night of the opera. Fortunately those kinds of projects are now becoming almost commonplace, and not only for Opera North.
Yet there is still a sense that opera is a white European art form, supported by the composition of audiences and the still relatively low numbers of black principal artists seen on our stages. Why is that? A change for the worse has been the decline in instrumental teaching at low level, says Opera North. It is now available only to children whose parents are willing to pay for it. That has led to a sharp decrease in the numbers of non-white children taking up the violin, cello, harp and other musical instruments. The number of ethnic minority children who came into
266
the system as long ago as the 1980s had started to change the profile of orchestras. But according to Opera North, over recent years that influx has dried up. This points to a flaw in the system to which Her Majesty's Government might pay attention in the interests of a better balance between white and ethnic minority musicians.
It is now common to hear music from a variety of countries and cultures, even on the traditional radio station of Radio 3, where classical music from the West once predominated. This has tended to be advantageous to classical music as it has removed the stigma attaching to it in the minds of some listeners by putting it into a context with the music of other cultures.
Another distinguished opera company, the English National Opera, is committed to a policy of equal opportunities in its employment practices and to ensuring that no job applicant or employee receives less favourable treatment on the grounds of race or ethnic origin. However, a major reason for the low numbers of people from some ethnic groups in opera is under-representation in music colleges and a general lack of candidates from the black community. The ENO orchestra welcomes applicants from any racial background, but the fact remains that it has only two black members. In the area of dance, the company's current cast for "Orpheus" has four black chorus dancers. The orchestra of the English National Opera has only one black conductor, Henry Lewis. Singers are cast entirely on their ability and with no regard to ethnic origin. For example, Willard White, probably the world's most famous black singer was cast as Boris Ismailov in "Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District", Sandra Browne as Octavian in "Der Rosenkavalier", David Arnold as Escamillo in "Carmen", and Thomas Randle in the forthcoming production of "The Magic Flute". Those examples look encouraging until we consider how many hundreds of names would figure in a list of white performers.
That black would-be performers should be encouraged to pursue a career in music is obvious, for they are often outstanding. This judgment makes a refreshing change from the exclusive remark so commonly repeated, that black people make wonderful dancers; rather, it seems to be that when opportunity and encouragement are there, Afro-Caribbeans and Asians make wonderful musicians.
The Royal Opera House acknowledges what must be evident: that the art forms of opera and ballet are in the Caucasian and North European tradition. At the same time, it recognises that that must change if audiences, including a large percentage of non-whites, are to be attracted to performances. Audiences naturally want to see their own people on the stage in productions written and directed by their own people. With that end in view, the Royal Opera House runs an education project called Chance to Dance, spread across 50 schools in several south London boroughs, to include all ethnic groups, for children from the age of seven upwards, with a scholarship for full ballet training. The Laban Centre in Deptford, opened last month, has 13 studios and offers training to students from all over the world in classical dance.

267
BRIT is an Arts Council key strategic development which works to integrate black and Asian practitioners into mainstream theatre and thus to support a more equitable theatre. It is not only among actors that ethnic representation has been small. According to the Eclipse report, the result of a conference held in the summer of 2001, out of just over 2,000 staff employed in English theatre, only 80—some 4 per cent—were of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin. Out of 463 board members of English theatres, only 16—3.5 per cent—were Afro-Caribbean or Asian. Still, there is reason to believe that since then things have slowly improved. Among many other groups and companies to which the Arts Council has been allocating funds is the Leicester Haymarket Theatre, where there is a hub of training with two directors and an administrator. The theatre is currently amassing programmes which include projects using solely Afro-Caribbean and Asian performers. In Kully Thiarai, it has one of the very few artistic directors originating from these communities in the United Kingdom.
The Arts Council has inaugurated the South Asian Dance Alliance, a nation-wide agency to maximise opportunities locally and nationally, and the London Dance House consortium for African peoples. The Department for Education and Skills is seeking to target new audiences through specialist art and sports schools. An example is the funding of Elmhurst School in Tring to relocate to Birmingham, providing vocational training for what will eventually become a majority ethnic population.
The Asian Gurinder Chadha has achieved phenomenal success as the director of the film "Bend It Like Beckham"—though through her own efforts rather than from external support. The film featured the Afro-Caribbean actress Shaznay Lewis and made a star of Parminder Nagra as the football-obsessed teenager.
Research into multi-cultural broadcasting carried out by the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Commission resulted in the discovery that although significant progress has been made in the past five years, better representation of minorities is still needed on-screen and off-screen in decision-making positions. Channel 4, BBC1, BBC2, Choice FM, and Kiss 100 FM were commended on broadcasting minority interest programmes. Audiences felt that better representation would help towards creating a greater sense of belonging in British society, fostering a wider understanding of different cultures and allowing children to see themselves positively.
Concern was raised among Asian audiences of the way that arranged marriages were presented on television and they called for a fairer portrayal. Many African-Caribbeans, with good reason, dislike seeing their young men portrayed as irresponsibly fathering children with several different women. Participants from other ethnic groups took the view that their country of origin was either not represented at all on television or was shown in an unfavourable light. Leading black actors also feel that television companies patronise people from ethnic minorities
268
and take the view that approaches have to be made to them with "cap in hand" and that it is the writer or actor who must compromise—never the other way around.
Britain is contrasted to the achievements of African-American actors at last year's Oscars when Halle Berry made history as the first black woman to win the "Best Actress" award and Denzil Washington was the first black actor to win the "Best Actor" award since Sidney Poitier in 1963. British black independent producers in the United Kingdom felt that they were in the same position as women producers 20 years ago and were "ghettoised" away from main programme-making.
As of January this year, the BBC seems to be—I quote Greg Dyke's notorious phrase—"less hideously white" than it was, with 8.6 per cent of those on permanent or long-term contracts being black or Asian. It seems that its target percentage of 10 per cent will be met by the end of this year. Channel 4 has a target of 11 per cent by the end of 2003. But senior production remains predominantly white and it has been said that black and Asian entrants to newsrooms are quickly being persuaded on-screen as reporters.
I end by pointing out that people from ethnic minorities still feel that exclusion from mainstream society can be an ever-present reality. They are still acutely sensitive to tokenism, which implies condescension and a patronising attitude. Wary of the role that racial stereotyping in the performing arts can play in the perception of a white society, they want, not to be singled out and presented as "different" or "interesting" or "fascinating", hut as real, ordinary people, accepted and integrated. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell of Babergh, on securing this debate on racism in the performing arts. I was privileged to speak at the last debate that she initiated in October on racism in the theatre.
Mainstream organisations are becoming more inclusive of ethnic minority performers. The Arts Council, the BBC and Equity have taken steps to provide opportunities and support for black and Asian people during the past two years, as identified by the noble Baroness. Those changes have taken place even beyond London.
Part of that progress must be due to the Commission for Racial Equality's Race in the Media Awards that began in 1993 when my noble friend Lord Ouseley was chairman of the CRE, and I was a commissioner. Awards were given to newspapers, magazines, radio and television. The eleventh annual awards of the CRE Race in the Media will take place on 11th April at the Savoy Hotel.
When the Race in the Media Awards began, the awards were considered to be of less value than other awards given to white performers by large mainstream organisations. However, the people identified by the

269
CRE Race in the Media awards have now become famous and are celebrities in our national spectrum of talented performers.
Only in the past two years have a variety of culturally diverse organisations received funds from the Arts Council to support dance companies—£2 million through regular funding and £1 million through the National Touring Programme. Similar amounts of support have also been provided for several black and South Asian music groups. Both management skills and standards of performance are being addressed. Those recommendations were identified in the Eclipse report on developing strategies to combat racism in the theatre.
The BBC Radio Drama Company is offering a new BBC fellowship to black and Asian actors—the Norman Beaton Fellowship. Norman Beaton, a famous black actor, died in 1994. He was well known for his role in Channel 4's comedy, "Desmonds". BBC Radio Drama productions have featured famous ethnic minority actors such as Cathy Tyson, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Adrian Lester, Adjoah Andoh, David Harewood, Lenny Henry, Meera Syal, Nina Wadia, Ben Onwukwe and David Yip.
While those developments indicate progress, unhelpful stereotypes of ethnic minority performers continue. Successful and high profile performers such as Cathy Tyson, interviewed last Sunday in the Independent on Sunday, complain that roles offered to black actresses are limited by stereotypes. She said:
"All we ever arc is prostitutes or princesses from Africa".
I had the pleasure of meeting Cathy Tyson, who was born in Liverpool, in June 2002 at the Windrush Achievement Awards, a ceremony to celebrate the achievements of people from diverse backgrounds. Cathy Tyson, of course, has now developed a wide repertoire of roles on stage and on television, both in Hollywood and the UK.
In the area of performing arts, I must admit that best practice in racial equality is clearly more common in the United States than in this country. Opportunities offered to talented people from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds in Hollywood and on American television should serve to inspire and challenge our practices in the performing arts in Britain. Our ethnic minority performers want to compete with the best talent to achieve recognition. During the debate last October, I questioned why the role of Madam Butterfly is usually taken by a European singer. I am pleased to observe that the English National Opera currently has a Japanese singer playing Madam Butterfly in London.
Our British-horn black, Asian and Chinese people are becoming scriptwriters, composers of music and performers of high quality in mainstream arts. In the past, opportunities for ethnic minority people to appear on stage, television and in films were limited to a small number of performers who had become celebrities. Many more talented performers will emerge soon. The performing arts, particularly television, should nurture and value new talent not only for commercial gain but in order that they might serve as role models for young people.
270
A survey on multicultural broadcasting published in November 2002, reported audience attitudes on the level of representation of ethnic minorities. I quote some important findings of a report supported by the BBC, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. It states that,
"participants from minority ethnic groups agreed that there had been an increase in the levels of representation of ethnic minorities within mainstream broadcasting over recent years. Nevertheless, they still saw the need for greater representation, both of their own communities as well as other minority groups.
"Participants said it was important to be represented in mainstream broadcasts, be they radio or television, because they were considered to be the most influential of the media. Specialist services"—
in other words, radio programmes in ethnic minority languages—
"while important to the communities they served, could not address this general need to be 'seen'.
"The reasons for wanting increased and better representation in mainstream broadcasting included: demonstrating a sense of belonging within British society; fostering a better understanding of ethnic cultures among other communities, including the White population; and allowing their children to identify with positive representations of people from their communities ….
"In summary, broadcasting was seen to have a role to play in breaking down certain barriers by offering: positive role models. such as figures of respect and authority, especially to younger people; different and positive images of the countries from which participants originated; ethnic groups a sense of inclusion within British society, especially when portrayed within mainstream broadcasting; some access to material in the language of a participant's country of origin".
I hope that this debate will stimulate as much interest in broadcasting as that in October last year. And I hope that Her Majesty's Government will recognise the changes that need to take place to ensure that the participating arts genuinely represent a diverse United Kingdom.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Rendell in bringing the vexed question of racism in the performing arts to the attention of this House. My noble friend has given a pictorial précis of the current situation within the British performing arts, with her usual care and precision.
I want to take the issue of cultural diversity and equal opportunity into a realism as experienced by the black community as I understand it. In her historic speech at the Academy Awards last year, already mentioned, Halle Berry, who became the first African American woman performer to win the award for best actress in a leading role, told the audience,
"This moment is so much bigger than me—this moment is for those who came before, for those who stand beside me and for those who have only begun to dream of making it in Hollywood".
Those words were blurred by tears of anguish. To date. no black actress could utter those or similar words in the UK because theatreland is not in the business of equal rights or equal opportunities.

271
"It is in the business of making money",
were the words of Professor Todd Boyd at the University of California, whose specialism is critical studies, when asked whether Halle Berry's Oscar would mean more opportunities being made available to other black actresses. Noble Lords may be interested to know that in 2003 Miss Berry was the first black woman to be awarded an Oscar for best actress. That tells its own story.
That anecdote just related by me is true also of London's West End. The West End is not in the business of equal opportunity and cultural diversity. It is a commercial business of audience appeal, known in the profession as "bums on seats". There are no prospective Halle Berrys in the West End of London.
The London West End, as we know, thrives because of the enormous support the English system of subsidy has provided in the development of theatre over the centuries. Our subsidised theatre has been the envy of many countries in the world because by offering the space for experiment and exploration within the sector as a sort of engine room for the future classics, the West End is able to have seasoned actors and playwrights whose work it is able to market both nationally and internationally.
The majority of people interested in theatre see London's West End and its environment as the place where real theatre, English theatre, takes place. However, I suggest that that myopic view might be viewed with some understanding as often there is nothing else on offer. There is no work from the perspective of Britain's black community. Yes, we are sometimes able to see some black performers, as a token to equal opportunities, in the "Lion King", dressed so very fetchingly in their animal costumes, singing and dancing with great aplomb. I ask: should this be the only offering available from the black community?
Less stereotypical, less predictable work from the black sector is unlikely ever to be seen as viable because the under-investment in black-run, black-led theatre in Britain has meant that there is so little opportunity to hone their skills. I have said previously in this House that there is not a single theatre in this country which is dedicated to the exploration and experiment in the art forms of black British theatre. There are a multitude of such well-funded establishments which support some black theatre practitioners, but none for black people themselves to manage and grow. I believe that that is sad and a glaring loss. There is a glaring need and an unfair disadvantage.
The black community has identified one such theatre, but the powers that be have set a glass wall that cannot be broken without much more help than is now on offer. This could result in a missed opportunity to enrich the fabric of British theatre. So long as black British theatre practitioners continue to have to make a case with those who hold the keys, the only work which will get through the door, and possibly—only possibly—get on the stage, is work approved by the
272
gatekeepers. We see on our televisions football stars and those who have been good boxers owning their own programmes, but not our trained actors and actresses. The pound sign must be seen on their foreheads before they are given the opportunity. The power lies solely in the hands of white people, who can see things only through white eyes, however sympathetic. There is, I repeat, no black presence in the high places of cultural discussion and decision making.
This situation will remain the same if some change is not engineered, no matter how many equal opportunity documents are drawn up. Change must be engineered if it is to become a reality. The self-determination which would result from black culture having a home of its own, in which it would be free to break the cycle of preconception and prejudgment—sometimes called "prejudice"—is an issue which must be addressed. Such prejudice dogs the art of those whose influences are not wholly white European. Authentic judgment and application, through experiment and exploration in a safe place, is needed. New art forms lead to the excitement and exhilaration which reflect today's changed social scene.
Your Lordships may have noticed that I have not mentioned the word "racism". This is because I have come to understand that it is an emotive word and is not to be used lightly. It is often counter-productive as shutters go up and the way forward is effectively barred. But I remind the House that it exists, sometimes in so careless and casual a manner that it is not recognised for what it is.
I discussed the debate with Ms Yvonne Brewster, a producer and actress, who asked why it is that black people are found in the canteens, in the cloakrooms and behind the brooms, but so rarely on the stage, which reflects a reality they recognise. Sombre thoughts.
In February 2002, the Cabinet Office Minister, Barbara Roche, accepted that there were significant differentials between ethnic minorities and their white counterparts in unemployment, wages and promotion. She said, "Putting this right requires dedication and imagination". I believe that the arts, especially the performing arts, have the power to heal, to allow lateral thinking, but too often it is the last place one looks for solutions. I hope that in responding to the debate the Minister will give support to a theatre that is black-led and black-owned.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, the development of a cultural identity is a basic human need, and the arts are crucial to this development. The arts help individuals, communities and society to be more creative in ways that go well beyond the arts. Those who are denied opportunities to either participate in the arts or to create art are indeed deprived. As a society we must make every effort to ensure that no one is denied such opportunities. It is not only socially and morally important but also, since the passing of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, legally important. I

273
therefore welcome the debate. I commend the commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, in pursuing this topic with such tenacity and I congratulate her on introducing it so constructively.
I have a particular interest in the arts and diversity. I declare an interest in that, since 1999, I have been a patron of Tara Arts, a national drama group based in south London; and from the mid-1990s to the late 1990s I chaired the Cultural Diversity Committee of the Arts Council.
During this period the Arts Council published an action plan entitled The Landscape of Fact which was directed towards a policy for cultural diversity. The title was taken from a line in Brian Friel's work, Translations. The complete sentence states:
"It can happen that a civilisation can be imprisoned in a linguistic contour which no longer matches the landscape of fact".
The plan recommended concerted action in four areas: understanding and promoting the concept of diversity; access; advocacy and development; combating racism and promoting equality of opportunity.
The plan has recently ended its five-year period of operation, culminating in another report, this time entitled Towards Greater Diversity. The title itself suggests that progress has been made, as we have heard, and the report gives an encouraging account of what has been achieved.
We know that more money is going to black, Asian and Chinese arts and, much more importantly, cultural diversity is now accepted as a generic mainstream issue. Furthermore, as other noble Lords have said, there have been initiatives such as the fellowship schemes by the Arts Council; the activities generated following the Eclipse report of regional training days for senior management and boards of theatre companies; the networks set up by the Black Regional Initiative in Theatre to develop black and Asian work and audiences; and the radical schemes such as Arts for Everyone, among many others. These initiatives have started to change the landscape and make a difference. Lottery money has also made a difference because it has given the Arts Council and other arts organisations leeway for movement.
But significant issues still exist. The arts are not isolated from the pressures, prejudices and inequalities of a wider society. There still remains a need for continuing and concerted action if the playing field is to be levelled.
What is the key to eradicating racism? Now is the opportunity to build on the progress to date and to go beyond examples and single initiatives to a more sustained, coherent and concerted strategy. We must ask ourselves what should be our vision of a society without racism in the arts. I would single out three issues.
First, I believe that in the longer term the category "cultural diversity" within arts organisations would become redundant. Inclusiveness, cohesion, respect and exploration would become the main drivers for change. Secondly, it would be a society with shared spaces and public open arenas accessible to a range of cultures and voices, where a coherent society could
274
come for a chance to meet, interact and evolve. Thirdly, it would be a society where institutions with changed attitudes would be aware of and reflect diversity.
The question is how we can achieve this. First, it will require a long-term commitment to development. know that development takes time and is hard to achieve, but it is something to which we need to pay attention. Secondly, we will need representative structures. The arts institutions must become diverse and reflect diversity.
We will need a strong infrastructure of buildings for performance, experimentation and innovation, and support for the development of skills and training for black, Asian and Chinese groups and for administrators and promoters who are uncertain about dealing with diversity. Above all, we need clear leadership from government, the Arts Council and other arts organisations.
Finally, I commend the Arts Council document Towards Greater Diversity because it provides a cogent and admirably tough analysis of what still needs to be done. I have been greatly impressed by the formula arrived at in the work of the Arts Council's excellent Diversity Unit, particularly the work of its senior head, Naseem Khan, who left last week after seven years of impressive work.
The formula identifies two complementary actions. It argues that the Arts Council and other arts organisations should balance two different thrusts: first, increased opportunities for tackling resistance and racism in the mainstream arts; secondly, the building of capacity at grass roots level. It suggests that if we were to do one or the other predominantly, then the result would be counter-productive. If we concentrate on making sure that opportunities exist more than they do at present, we will run the danger of helping to make jobs for a group that does not exist in sufficient numbers or with the experience at the appropriate level. The result would be scepticism among the mainstream organisations about the need for positive action at all. The "we advertised and no one suitable applied" syndrome would continue.
If the formula concentrated just on enhancing capacity for black and Asian arts administrators, artists, curators and promoters, without making sure that wider opportunities were available, alienation would increase and black artists would consistently say that they were being trained but not employed. We would not see much progress.
Balancing the two by building capacity and providing opportunity is the way forward. That would increase choice and allow artists and managers to choose where they want to operate and how. Choice is what we should be working towards—that is, choosing one's identity and lifestyle—which is why this debate is of such importance. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether the Government and the Arts Council will be moving towards a coherent approach and supporting it with adequate resources.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for introducing this debate in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness has a unique experience and expertise in the arts, particularly on this subject. I will therefore be brief, as I am not an expert in the performing arts. However, as someone who enjoys theatre, concerts, music, TV and radio, I have a few observations to make.
We are all proud of our multi-cultural society and there are many ways in which we can celebrate this diversity, one of which is through the performing arts. As in many other institutions, there is racism within the performing arts in the United Kingdom, particularly against the Muslim community. I will return to that later.
I believe that as a multi-cultural society, our theatres, TV and radio should reflect this cultural diversity in staffing, board appointments, artistic programmes, education activities and audience. The noble Baroness has already given percentages of board appointments and staffing which do not reflect our society. I believe that reflecting our cultural diversity will foster a better understanding of ethnic cultures among other communities, including the white population. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, equality in the performing arts will demonstrate a sense of belonging in British society for all the ethnic minority communities. It will allow their children to identify with positive representations of people from their communities.
Unfortunately, there is too much negative stereotyping and very little of the real British society is being represented. I believe that through the performing arts many positive achievements can be easily reached. Figures of respect and authority who appeal especially to younger people can be positive role models. There needs to be a sense of inclusion, as well as positive images of cultures, religions and places of origin.
Although the Arts Council of England has many good initiatives for inclusion—I particularly welcome the increased support of black and Asian theatre, which was agreed as a national priority—I am yet to be convinced that enough is done to include the Muslim community within the arts. I am aware of a few thousand grant allocations for cultural programmes here and there, and a few musical events being sponsored, but how many women with hijab—women wearing scarves—are seen in the theatre or on our screens?
I recently came across a Muslim woman stand-up comedian, who was excellent. She is a British-born young lady brought up in the UK in a conservative environment. In fact, she has been to perform Ummrah—a visit to Mecca—which shows how religious her family background is. Yet she was extremely talented in her field and is very popular in all sections of the community.
276
There are many other talented young people like her. This brings down a lot of misunderstandings and barriers. The test for any institution is in practice rather than policy documents that collect dust.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the BBC, ITV and other institutions. Do we see many Muslim recipients of, or participants in, national awards?
I end with the hope that one day we will make equality a reality in all aspects of our life, including in the performing arts.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, as I said in an earlier debate on racism in the theatre, we on these Benches are, without exception, dedicated to a multi-racial society. To that extent, we share some of the frustration which has been apparent in some of the speeches made today. I can understand that frustration, but I will have to examine the detail more closely.
The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, was extremely interesting; I shall read it in detail in Hansard. It would be unlikely if we were in France, let us say, for an eminent member of the Afro-Caribbean community, like the noble Baroness, to have made such a speech. Why should that be? France is no less racist. fundamentally, than any other community. All European countries have racism to a certain degree. France has been a colonial country, like us. We could be more critical of many aspects of French colonialism; it penetrated much more deeply into the areas of Africa where the French were in evidence than was the case in British Africa. There was an education system and a system of fonctionnaires, or administrators, which went down to a very low level. African independence from the French yoke was as greatly wished for as in British, Belgian or German areas.
I go to France quite often, which is probably surprising to hear nowadays. On television you see evidence of a multi-racial society in the performing arts that you do not see here. I am particularly fond of music, modern as well as classical, and Latin American, Caribbean, African and North African music is widely played on French television. Every variety programme has a multi-racial mix in the presentation that we do not see here. The reason is purely the cultural aspect of our particular colonialism. We talked about that in the previous debate on the theatre; I do not want to repeat the speech I made then, which was over-long, and I do not want to be over-long this evening. There has been slow progress, from a very poor start, particularly as far as Afro-Caribbeans are concerned. I mentioned this in October too.
To hasten the process of having greater representation of ethnic minorities in the performing arts is a slow business. To that extent, I do not think I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. I understood her to say that we must make efforts to accelerate this change at all costs. I think that it will happen anyway, although I understand her frustration.

277
She talks about Halle Berry in America. Many black artists in America have fought through tremendous difficulties to reach great eminence in their profession. Lena Horne, for example, had a terrifyingly oppressive and difficult childhood. I am old enough to remember being very impressed as a child when she starred in the film "Stormy Weather". I still think she was one of the most brilliant black performers I have seen in the cinema. There is a wide range of black artists in America today who are accepted generally. I suppose that there are still pockets in the deep south where there is resistance to accepting that these people can be as good and as talented as they are. One of my three favourite film actors in the world is Samuel L Jackson. Halle Berry is obviously another extremely talented star.
Why do we not have these people here? The simple answer is that we do not have a film industry to speak of. We struggle to maintain a niche industry, with a distribution system that is entirely geared to first-release American films, sometimes with ethnic actors and sometimes not. There is very little opportunity for British films to be distributed and shown. I was interested to read today that the Film Council has at East put some money into distribution to fund more prints of films, so that British films generally, whether they have ethnic actors or not, have a greater chance of being shown. Until British films have a greater chance of being shown, it is extremely unlikely that white British actors are going to be seen, let alone black or Asian ones. I look forward to the time when that will happen.
British ethnic minority cinema actors will be seen more often when more of those communities start to write film scripts. In my experience, a lot of the ethnic minorities here come from cultures that are very visual in their tradition. The British are not a visual nation in their tradition. They have a literary tradition that goes right through their theatre, broadcasting and television. It is very difficult to break that culture, but it is possible. both in the theatre and in film—more quickly in film and television, I suggest, than in traditional, legitimate theatre.
These are all debates for another day. I did not expect to say much today because I thought that everything had been said on the last occasion. I give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for introducing the debate and stretching further into the performing arts.
On the face of it, one would think that there was less racism—I do not like that word any more than does the noble Baroness, Lady Howells—in the performing arts than in other areas of British life. After all, there are talented dancers, musicians and singers from all the ethnic minorities—just as many as there are in boxing and other areas that the noble Baroness mentioned. Boxers get to the top through their talent, dedication, training, skill and ability to beat their opponents. Black actors will get there in British theatre and film by being better than their white colleagues. Many of them have the capacity to do that, but how will they get to that point?
278
The first issue is education. We have to get more black and Asian people into drama schools, for a start. Before drama school, we have to make sure that their talents are quickly recognised and developed at primary and secondary schools so that they go into the arts.
I imagine that racism in the performing arts covers more than just performers. I do not think there is any problem with the ethnic minorities as performers. I have seen many great performers. They are not often seen here for the cultural reason I have mentioned. Apart from cinema writers, we need to get more people into theatre management or production.
I rang up Equity to find out its views on the debate. I did not get much information, but I was told that the Independent Theatre Council is now running an expanded fast track scheme, supported by the Association of London Government and various other bodies, including the Arts Council England. to target people towards arts management. That is an important programme and I am glad it is happening. The scheme targets the current under-representation of Afro-Caribbean and Asian people in arts management and offers graduates or people with proven transferable management skills the opportunity to discover that there are great opportunities for them in that area of life, which requires multi-skilled and talented people. A 15-week full-time placement is provided in a performing arts organisation, with a bursary of £140 a week, together with day release for 12 Independent Theatre Council one-day management training courses throughout the placement, plus travel and accommodation allowances to attend the courses. That is a start on that important area. I commend Equity for bringing that to my attention. However, it will be a slow business and I do not think we can hurry it along.
Going back to performing, casting is a difficult and important area. People like to see their community represented on television, in the theatre or in films. If they do not, they are less likely to want to partake in those various areas of the performing arts. I do not think there is any particular difficulty in dance or singing, but there are obviously constraints on people unless there is more exposure.
Fulfilling the objective of getting more people being cast, sometimes by taking risks, relies on people's awareness, sensitivity and forethought. We cannot legislate for that any more than we can legislate for people's behaviour in the streets after the Licensing Bill, which is still preying on my mind.
Having worked in the theatre and knowing how important the issue is, I am glad that Equity is also working with Spotlight to create a new directory of Equity's African, Caribbean, oriental and Asian members. The directory of faces from which casting directors make their decision is important. It will be published at no cost to Equity or to members and will be available as a supplement to the Spotlight directory.
All these developments are under way. We shall have to debate progress again at some stage. Perhaps I shall not be here then, but others younger then me will be. Things are getting better, but I understand the

279
particular frustrations of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. I hope that we shall have further debates on this subject. Perhaps we can pick something out of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, because she made some challenging points. I do not agree with her that all Afro-Caribbean actresses play either prostitutes or African princesses. That is hyperbole, although I get her point. I hope it is not the case. I look forward to further discussions on this interesting subject.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, on again introducing this important matter. As noble Lords will be aware, like the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, I was not involved in the recent debate on this subject, when my noble friend Lady Buscombe spoke on behalf of these Benches. I do not believe that the situation has changed materially since then and I do not propose to detain your Lordships for long.
We are very grateful to the Arts Council of England—the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, made this point more effectively than I could—for its very helpful approach in emphasising the need for the theatre to engage with audiences and artistes emanating from a broader, more diverse range of backgrounds. There is a need for the theatre to reflect real life more accurately. It is important that the theatre reflect the diversity of culture in the 21st century.
There are funding issues, as several speakers have said, that must be addressed. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, we cannot underestimate the importance of effective training and education. The overall aim must be to ensure multiracial representation at all levels in the performing arts. At the same time, however, theatres have to be practical and measure supply and demand if they are to survive at all in these difficult times.
There are many examples of breaking down barriers from which those in the world of theatre may take heart. I refer to the world's pop, television and film. There are plenty of role models—previous speakers have mentioned so many that I find it difficult to think of some who have not been listed—who are surely the key to setting the pace for change. I cite but a few, such as Otis Redding and Jennifer Lopez. Halle Berry has rightly been mentioned by nearly every speaker. She has carried a torch and most worthily won an Oscar last year. I should also like to mention one who has not yet been mentioned and is perhaps more from my time than from that of some noble Lords—the late great Paul Robeson. Who will ever forget his "Ole Man River"? The trouble was that, in his time, the only roles available to a black actor such as himself were as either the noble savage or the escaping slave. It is a great shame. If he were alive now, my goodness would we not get some marvellous operatic performances?
280
I conclude by agreeing with Peter Hewitt, chief executive of the Arts Council. He said:
"There is a need to change the mind-set and artistic practice of the theatre to reflect the diverse society of Britain in the 21st century".
It is to be hoped most fervently that there is the necessary commitment, the necessary finance and the necessary courage to meet those aspirations. I look forward, as always, to the Minister's reply.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Rendell of Babergh for initiating this debate. Although we enjoyed debating these issues last October, that debate left many ends untied. I am therefore sure that we have all enjoyed the opportunity to participate in this debate.
I recognise the strength of the case presented by my noble friend Lady Howells, who reminded us that there are aspects of racism in the arts, the performing arts and the theatre which we need to combat. However, I have also found myself very much drawn to those who have emphasised that we should perhaps look to the positive objective that we should seek to realize—the promotion of cultural diversity. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for outlining a series of points and criteria that we could usefully adopt to measure our progress towards those achievements. This debate has no doubt greatly advanced that cause.
Way back in 1948, T S Eliot wrote that,
"the cultures of different people affect each other: in the world of the future it looks as if every part of the world would affect every other part".
By heavens, how right he was. Today, following the two momentous debates in this House and in another place about how the wider world is breaking in on our world and our response to it, we are all too well aware that we need both international understanding and, within our own communities, understanding, trust, mutual faith and the promotion of equal regard, which is the basis on which the good modern society is founded. The Government are committed to making Britain a successful multi-cultural society. We are determined to build a society where each of us, regardless of race or religion, has equal rights, equal opportunities and equal responsibilities.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, racism is unacceptable anywhere in society. In that context, I was interested in his reference to the achievements of French society. Although we would not want to be overconfident about our own position in any way, I think that he also paid due regard to certain aspects of racism in France that are manifested in rather more malign forms than perhaps we have seen in the United Kingdom. I recognise his point about certain aspects of the media where greater diversity is demonstrated. I hope to establish that the Government are also seeking to take concrete action to increase opportunities.

281
Bonnie Greer, artist, broadcaster and hoard member of the Royal Opera House, said:
"A cultural diversity policy should put art and artists first. Only in the hands of artists, can art grow and flourish. Culture, on the other hand, can be made and encouraged by the state. This is what the state should do, create a new culture that recognises the contribution of all of its citizens on an equal basis".
That is a noble objective—one to which I think we have all in our various ways sought to subscribe. Promotion of equality of opportunity and an understanding among employers in the performing arts of the total unacceptability of racism are vital in ensuring the participation of diverse communities in the arts and cultural industries.
The battle to combat racism in the performing arts is being fought on many fronts. Last year's Eclipse and updated Glass ceilings reports, the Fast Track 2003 programme for Black and Asian people in arts management, the Black Regional Initiative for Theatre, the Theatrical Managers Association Eclipse Award and the Arts Council of England's Decibel programme are just a few of the fronts on which these issues are being fought. These projects are working to create change, working to make the performing arts more culturally inclusive and working to tackle the perceived problems of a culture of racism.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, emphasised the role of the Arts Council, to which she has shown significant commitment. I assure her that diversity is a key corporate objective for the council, which is working to ensure that in all open application programmes there is a diverse range of artists and companies receiving funding. She also asked about evidence of real resources for the Decibel project. The Arts Council is providing a significant sum—£5 million—for the project. Black, Asian and Chinese arts were given a significant boost from the council's capital programme. Of the £90 million allocated to 60 projects, £29 million went to black, Asian and Chinese arts organisations, which is real proof of the direction in which the council is working. Some £2.1 million has been reserved for the development of a new Chinese arts centre in Manchester and £1.5 million has been earmarked to relocate Kala Sangham, the Academy of South Asian Performing Arts, to west Yorkshire. As the noble Baroness rightly said, fine words are one thing but resources to back them and to achieve objectives are another. Those projects are tangible proof that the matter we are discussing is being taken seriously.
But how can we increase the involvement of people from different ethnic communities in the arts? First, we must support more culturally diverse performing arts companies to work in their own communities and beyond. Secondly, we must ensure that people and artists from our ethnically diverse communities have the opportunity to enjoy and work in mainstream arts organisations. As was said. this matter does not concern only performers but also administration and those who make the crucial decisions about what is presented and performed.
282
Since last October, the Eclipse report has continued to influence the work that is being done to develop strategies to make our theatre more culturally diverse and in the process tackle racism. Progress is slower than many of us would like, and more time is needed, but many of the recommendations are being addressed through the Arts Council and its regional offices. For example, seminars on positive action and equality of opportunity have now taken place in every region, apart from London which has seminars planned for April.
In the North East, partnerships are being formed between community organisations and the theatres in the region to raise awareness of the issues in the Eclipse report and to create connections between community organisations and the performing arts. In the North West, three new young black and minority ethnic companies have recently been awarded fixed term funding—Black Arts Development Project, Rasa and Peshkar. In the East Midlands a new diversity plan has been formulated for theatre in consultation with artists from the region.
I pick up the point made about the West End theatre. We all recognise that the West End theatre has commercial objectives which it needs to achieve. It does not receive state subsidy and therefore its productions are very much influenced by the audience it seeks to attract. Our regional theatres point the way in this regard. The theatres are producing three major pieces of black theatre, the first of which is a production of Errol John's classic play "Moon on a Rainbow Shawl" which is currently on tour. Rather disparaging comments were made of the "Lion King" production at the Dominion Theatre. Sonic noble Lords criticised the "Lion King" as being too stereotypical. I point out that the Young Vic's production of -Simply Heavenly" has just opened. We hope that that will attract significant audiences. As we all recognise, the West End has a significant role to play as regards role models. That point was also raised with regard to broadcasting.
We are all well aware of the need to provide opportunities in both broadcasting and film to reflect: the diversity of talent in our nation. There is no doubt at all that broadcasting, in particular television, is a most powerful medium and has an important role to play in helping to break down stereotypes. Broadcasters should certainly reflect and celebrate our culturally diverse communities and provide programmes that appeal to a wide range of tastes and interests, as well as to people of different ages and backgrounds. The scope of new programming services increases in a digital environment, and we want to see the opportunities created being fully exploited.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Chan and Lord Ahmed, emphasised the matter of role models for young Asians and young black people in our communities. I totally endorse the points that they made. The television broadcasters' Cultural Diversity Network was set up three years ago in response to concerns raised by Chris Smith, the then Secretary of State at DCMS, and others about the adequacy of the representation of our multi-cultural society on and behind the screen.

283
The network is involved in a number of schemes and events to promote ethnic minority employment in broadcasting, including special training schemes and networking events. It has also established an online database of ethnic minority talent.
The Communications Bill, which will shortly come before your Lordships' House, has a role to play in the matter we are discussing. It will address the issue that more needs to be done for broadcasting fully to reflect our multi-cultural society in terms of programme content and employment. The provisions in our draft Communications Bill are intended to require Ofcom to ensure that broadcasters include sufficient programmes that reflect the lives and concerns of different communities and cultural interests and traditions in the UK, both locally and nationally. Channel 4 will have a specific remit to satisfy the tastes and interests of a diverse society. The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, emphasised the role that Channel 4 plays in that respect at the present time. That role will be enhanced under new proposals.
The draft Bill also includes specific provisions about equality of opportunity in broadcast employment. That emphasises the fact that it is not just a question of seeking diversity among the people who appear on the screen or behind the microphone but also diversity as regards the crucial decisions that are taken behind the scenes.
In addition, all licensed television and radio broadcasters who meet threshold conditions set out in the Bill will be required to make arrangements for the promotion of equality of opportunity between men and women, people of different racial groups and between disabled people and non-disabled people in terms of employment. They will also be required to publish the arrangements, review them from time to time and comment on them annually. Increasing diversity in this way behind the screen will, I am in no doubt, lead to on screen programming that better meets the needs of the UK's many different communities and cultural interests.
Although I am not at this moment extending an invitation to noble Lords to participate in the Broadcasting Bill, I can forecast with some confidence that the Bill will receive intensive scrutiny in this House. The matter we are discussing will form an important part of that scrutiny.
The Film Council, the Government's strategic lead body for film, is also working on various initiatives to encourage and deliver a more diverse film workforce across the UK by actively engaging with traditionally under-represented groups and the wider industry. Our film industry has an important role to play here. We should recognise when easy comparisons are made with Hollywood and the American film industry that we are measuring a minnow against the whale in terms of resources, significance and control of the British market, as I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said. Nevertheless, our industry certainly needs to make its contribution to cultural diversity.
284
I think that I have shown that there is much work, thinking and planning being done across the arts and broadcasting to promote cultural diversity and, in doing so, to combat racism. There is no doubt that we have a long way to go and we must continue to strive to eliminate racism from all our services and institutions through our policy making and funding systems.
What I particularly enjoyed today is that, from the first speaker in the debate, my noble friend Lady Rendell, to the speaker before me, the noble Lord, Lord Luke, all noble Lords addressed themselves to the same objectives that we need to realise in our broadcasting and arts media, in terms of promoting a better reflection of our diverse society. It is on that basis that we can all derive the encouragement from this debate to go forward with constructive policies.
The dancer Shobana Jeyasingh said:
"Policies that are led by the principles of multiculturalism and cultural diversity are there to encourage a more equitable distribution of resources and promote a greater awareness of the work everyone, regardless of colour, has to do to achieve a stable and just society".
That excellent sentiment sums up the theme behind the debate. Once again, I am grateful to my noble friend for having introduced it. We have learnt a great deal together and made considerable progress. I hope that I have given the assurance that the Government concur with the objectives expressed by everyone in the debate, and are concerned to use real resources and proper strategies to achieve them.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I would like to congratulate all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, made interesting points on the views and perceptions of ethnic minority artists, questioning why the part of Madam Butterfly is traditionally taken by a white, instead of a Japanese or Chinese, singer. My noble friend Lady Howells spoke movingly about theatres in London's West End failing in their efforts to attain cultural diversity.
In her perceptive observations, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, spoke of a more equitable society as now becoming a mainstream issue, and of the desirability of clear leadership from Her Majesty's Government and the Arts Council. My noble friend Lord Ahmed spoke of his pride in a multicultural society, but also of his regret that the Muslim community was not yet well represented in the performing arts.
I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill
5.53 p.m.
Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March):
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Carter) in the Chair.]
Title postponed.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Before inviting my noble friend in the Chair to put that Motion to the House, I want to say what a pleasure it is to appear before him in his role as Chairman for the first time.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Bill passed.

University Funding
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicoterose to call attention to the relationship between arrangements for the funding of students and student choice in British universities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to speak with some hesitation, and admit to not only being surprised by my success in the ballot, but somewhat daunted by the prospect. That is not only because of the expertise and experience of those who will follow me in the debate, but also because it is the third debate on the subject in less than four months. However, all that, and the lively debate in the press on the higher education White Paper, has certainly helped to establish the background, and I suspect much common ground, for the debate.
I intend to focus very largely on methods of funding and in particular, on the link in that respect between university institutions and their clients or customers—their student body, actual or potential. I shall have nothing to say about, for example, the allocation (as between different institutions) of research funding, important though that is, nor about the quite lamentable level of academic salaries, which was the
286
subject of the recent debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. I look forward, of course, to what others may have to say on those and other topics. but I shall concentrate today on arrangements for the funding of students.
The details of those arrangements have huge importance, because of the effect that they can have on two fundamental matters: the independence, and therefore the quality, of universities, and the extent to which those crucial, nation-building institutions are accessible, as they should be, to all those who can benefit from them in all sections of the community.
Having stressed the importance of access, perhaps I may start with my one major criticism of the Government's strategy, as set out in the recent White Paper. Even without targeting of the kind proposed by HEFCE last week—it was nevertheless pretty effectively dismissed—the Government are heading in the wrong direction with the proposed appointment of a so-called "access regulator". That does not mean that I am content with the present patterns of access. Of course we should be concerned at the small proportion of non-middle-class children reaching university. Certainly some able children who could and should benefit from university education are not getting the chance.
It is important to understand why. It is not because universities, consciously or unconsciously, are biased against those children. The reason is essentially because our "early years" support, although well under way, and particularly our schooling system is letting them down—much more, it has to be said, than used to be the case in the heyday of the grammar schools. In the 1960s, before the grammar schools started to disappear, more than 60 per cent of university students came from state schools. Today there is a struggle to get the figure above 50 per cent.
The point is expressly acknowledged in the White Paper, which states:
"The single, most important, cause of the social class division in higher education participation is differential attainment in schools and colleges".
Certainly that problem requires proactive responses, and not just in schools. Good examples are already being set by many universities, as the White Paper again makes clear, with initiatives like "Excellence Challenge" and "Partnerships for Progression" now to be merged into "Aim Higher".
However, I do not believe that the problem calls for more bureaucratic, central control of the "access regulator" kind. Indeed, the last thing that our universities need is any increase in central planning, regulation or control.
I am very glad to be able to say that that message at last seems to be getting through and is beginning to spread more widely. It was presented in last autumn's higher education debate in this House by a number of distinguished university leaders. On that occasion, if I may risk causing offence by making a choice, the case was perhaps put most compactly and comprehensively

287
by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He made very clear, above all, the lessons that we should be ready to learn from the United States.
What is even more encouraging is that that type of case is now being put with increasing clarity by our universities, not least by some of the newer vice-chancellors, who bring with them important fresh thinking from distinct and different backgrounds. One such example is that of Sir Richard Sykes at Imperial College, who came straight from his challenging experience at the competitive heights of a global pharmaceutical industry. Another—possibly less controversial but certainly equally relevant—example is the new vice-chancellor of Brunel University, Professor Steven Schwartz. He is a New Yorker who has spent the past six years as vice-chancellor of Murdoch University in Western Australia.
Encouraged by their wisdom, I now turn to the numerous aspects of the White Paper which I warmly welcome, not just for themselves but for what they imply—for what I certainly hope they imply—for the further development of policy, and not least for the enlargement of student choice.
I begin with the first plus point about the White Paper. Most striking and most welcome is the substantial commitment of extra resources: 6 per cent in real terms for the next three years. I emphasise that that figure must be maintained. That is needed to help to reverse the serious and long-running decline over the past 15 years: a fall in the annual funding per student of about 40 per cent. Of course I—and, I am sure, most if not all noble Lords—have considerable sympathy with students who complain about increased fees and their consequences. Our generation, after all, had most of our higher education paid for by the state. However, we live in very different times and there is no justification—if ever there was—for those who will earn considerably more as a result of their university experience being paid for by those with a lower lifetime income.
So, the second plus point is the decisive move in the direction of variable fees. We should note, incidentally, that the "cap" of £3,000 per annum is criticised by Richard Sykes of Imperial College and others for being set too low. Nevertheless, it is a substantial move towards freedom for universities to set their own prices—variable and diverse.
Both of those words are important for three reasons. The first is because it will give universities an important, and potentially growing, source of' independent income. The best already enjoy that to a significant extent, operating as they do in effect as entrepreneurial businesses. LSE, for example, now generates some 80 per cent of its own income—only 20 per cent comes from public funds.
Secondly, those words are important because it will be an incentive to higher education institutions of all kinds to compete with each other not just in terms of cost but in terms of character, quality, length of courses and so on. On that point, I dare say that some of your Lordships will have seen, in last week's
288
Independent on Sunday, the report that some universities are already now thinking of following Buckingham University's example, by offering two-year degree courses, not least because they will be specifically attractive to mature students. The market is already beginning to respond. The OU, of course, has for many years been awarding high quality degrees that are spread over a longer part-time period of study. Again, that meets a market need.
Thirdly, the words are important because, as this system develops, it will shift the balance of power decisively away from central planners and producers to consumers: students and employers. It will enlarge choice. There will be real benefits for universities, students and society as a whole.
The third major plus point of the White Paper is the rejection of a crudely comprehensive graduate tax in favour of personalised, income-contingent loans.
The fourth (and last) major plus point relates to the far-reaching improvement proposed in the income-contingent loan system that was introduced by this Government in 1998.
Taken together and further developed—the loans must be sufficient for a student to live on, although there has been criticism about that—these last two features will have the properly balanced effect of shifting resources in the direction in which they should be shifted. At the outset, they will be shifted from those who can afford to pay more. and who will lose some of their subsidies, to those who are less well off. They will benefit from the waiver of tuition fees and from the restoration of maintenance grants.
In the next stage, resources will be shifted from those who can afford to repay loans to those who cannot. That is because the repayment, in due course, of contingent loans will be strictly related to the income of the borrower. That is much fairer and more efficient than a general graduate tax.
So what should follow from all that? I was delighted—rather belatedly, in fact—to come across reports of the speech that the Minister responsible for higher education, Margaret Hodge, made at the Aberystwyth annual conference of Universities UK on 11th September last year. There I found my central argument foreshadowed: "Universities", the Minister said,
"are not all the same. and should stop pretending they are … [they] will need to find their unique selling point, as they begin to operate in more of a free market, … driven … by … student … demand".
That, in my view, defines exactly what we should be aiming at; it is the logical next step. It would, of course, be the antithesis of increasing central control.
That should, in my view, lead to three conclusions. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on them. First, once people have got used to the notion of paying fees, financed through an income-contingent loan system, the ceiling on those fees should be progressively raised. Eventually, we should have a wide range of differential prices, set by universities themselves to reflect the nature, complexity and length of courses. That has been well explained by

289
Professor Nicholas Barr in his impressive evidence to the Education and Skills Select Committee in another place.
That would effectively involve creating a genuine market, increasingly responsive to student choice and consumer demand: with diversity of supply, financed by differential fees, and an end to price control. However, as Professor Barr has crucially warned, that change would have to happen in stages over a period and most certainly not in a "big bang". That is why, in his view, a similar proposal ran into political trouble in New Zealand. Complementary measures will also be necessary; for example, the need to build up a considerable bank of student bursaries. Some suggestions were made about that in a previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. Here, both individuals and businesses will need not only encouragement but also substantial tax breaks.
My second conclusion—and probably the most important innovation—is that we need an end to the quota system. By that I mean the system whereby HEFCE in effect both limits and effectively guarantees the numbers of students who may attend each British university. So long as university numbers are centrally controlled in the present fashion—with a cap on expansion for the successful and a guaranteed stock of students for the mediocre—then, as Professor Schwartz rather sharply pointed out in a valuable discussion in Prospect in January 2003:
"There is no incentive for universities to compete, because each will get its students, no matter how lousy their outcomes or their research".
All of that would change. With quotas removed, with fees no longer capped and with loan-financed, income-contingent funding that followed a student's choice, we should have created a dynamic market that was responsive, as it should be, not to bureaucrats or producers but above all to student choice.
Finally, my third—and possibly most important—conclusion is that it will be essential to accompany the changes with repeated emphasis that, far from being regressive, a system that is structured and financed in that way will work to the benefit of people from poorer families. I quote Professor Schwartz for the last time:
"In Australia, the introduction of fees paid through graduate taxes has not reduced the number of people from poor families. In fact, quite the contrary. It made more places available and more people from all parts of the spectrum have come in. So fees are the solution. But without deregulation, without making university tees student driven, we might make matters worse. Universities are one of the last nationalised industries in Britain".
It is high time that we set our universities and our students free. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for the very wide-ranging way in which she introduced the debate. I agree with much, but not all, of what she said. The debate is timely but the subject is not new. It goes back over the past two decades when the rapid rise in student numbers began, together with the accompanying erosion of university funding. The signposts were as follows.
290
The first was the beginning of the phasing-out of the student maintenance grant and the introduction of a student loan system in 1988. The second was the Dearing report in 1997, with its recommendation of a student contribution to fees—widely accepted at the time—coupled with a retention of the maintenance grant. The third was a student contribution to fees. That was quickly accepted by the new government in 1997 but accompanied by the final phasing-out of maintenance grants. To cushion that change, a more benign loan repayment system was introduced. The fourth was the January 2003 White Paper.
The proposals of the White Paper which are relevant to this debate are: first, the abolition of the up-front payment of fees, making investment in one's future clearer; secondly, repayment on an ability-to-pay system after graduation with a £10,000 income threshold; and, thirdly, that students from lower income groups should receive a new maintenance grant. All those seem to indicate a more equitable and cohesive system and one less likely to be a deterrent. But accompanying them are proposals to permit universities to introduce a top-up fee of £3,000 and the establishment of an access regulator to ensure that universities which accept the top-up fee accompany it with a genuine access programme.
The last two proposals are the most controversial. I n January, I wrote to the Secretary of State expressing my opposition to top-up fees. I believe that if anything will act as a deterrent to students, it is the top-up fie. Even now, I hope that the Government will have second thoughts on it.
Then there is a fear that the regulator could lead to some kind of quota system. Like the Government, I am opposed to quotas, but I believe that some serious questions need to be asked about qualifications for university entrance. Are A-levels, or their equivalent, the only answer to the need for a transparent, across-the-board qualification? Surely not. Already almost 40 per cent of students enter university on other than A-levels. My own university of Bradford. which is largely technology and science-based and has a research profile, is nevertheless strong on widening access and has a wide-ranging strategy in place.
A recent meeting of the All-Party University Group discussed the topic: "A-levels—is there a future?". The discussion was led by the very experienced head of a private school and a senior officer concerned with access from the "university industry". The synergy between the two was quite remarkable. Both agreed the need for an academic route and a parallel route based on basic skills and potential.
Clearly, a good deal of deep thought is being given to the contents of the two routes, and we need to begin to draw upon it and on the experience already in the field to establish a transparent and equivalent system which is acceptable all round. Such a system would extend student choice for many but would lessen the ability of others to obtain the university course of their choice. We need to ask ourselves which provides the greater amount of student choice and which is more in keeping with the needs of the 21st century.

291
I am critical of some aspects of the recent White Paper but, overall, I believe that it advances both the opportunities of today's young people and the opportunities of our universities, whose success is so vital to the success of our country.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I note that the noble Baroness, who is eminent in the land in talking about universities and eminent in her party, is against top-up fees. I wish the Secretary of State well.
I want to widen the debate a little. The Motion is about students in the United Kingdom as a whole. I want to point out to the House that at present there is considerable anxiety among academics in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about how the Government's proposals for England will impact on their universities and on United Kingdom student choice.
Many, indeed, are wondering whether, in developing these plans, the Department for Education and Skills gave any consideration at all to the predicament that it was creating for the rest of the United Kingdom's higher education systems. Perhaps I may illustrate that with the predicament in Scotland. Apart from money coming from the research councils and from sources outside the public sector, Scottish higher education is funded by the Scots Parliament. Historically, the cost has been much higher than in England. That, as your Lordships know, is because of the four-year degree, the higher participation rate and the greater number of institutions in Scotland per head of population.
Since devolution, the Scottish Executive has widened the spending gap further. Scots students contribute a third less than do those in England for longer courses. As a result, the Scottish Executive, via its funding council, pays its universities far more per student to replace what students are not paying themselves.
At the same time, the Scottish Executive's spending has moved ahead of England in other areas. There has been a big increase in school teachers' salaries, free personal care for old people and, of course, the Parliament building with its running costs, to mention but a few. All that comes from a finite budget which. under the Barnett formula, is increased only as England's spending is increased, less a £200 million squeeze each year.
Therefore, what will happen to Scottish universities if the proposals for England are implemented? Will the Scottish Executive be able to find the extra 6 per cent per year promised to England? Will the Scots Parliament's aversion to top-up fees and to the development of some universities which are much better funded than others be sustainable?
We must realise that all United Kingdom universities operate in a United Kingdom market—indeed, in an international market. If, as a result of top-up fees and other White Paper proposals, some universities in England become higher spending,
292
research-rich institutions and they and others become teacher-rich, then, with the status quo in Scotland, the best researchers and teachers will be tempted south, as will the most academically able students. To a certain extent, students from south of the Border, particularly those most averse to borrowing and with lower academic aspirations, will come north to Scotland because of the lower fees.
That would be bad for Scotland. Our population is falling, particularly our population of well-qualified people. We need to do everything we can to bring in and hold able students and academic staff; people who may stay and work or may return later.
Our economy needs its research-led universities to stay on top. The vice-chancellor of the University of Dundee—and I see the chancellor of another university sitting in his place—estimates that his university will be £15 million per year poorer than its English counterparts if the White Paper is implemented in England. It seems that in Scotland, the much-vaunted status quo will not be an option. Some universities will need top-up fees; some top teachers will have to be rewarded; and a greater concentration of research and of high-quality teaching may be needed.
The system in Scotland does not have to be identical to that in England. For example, I regard the idea of bullying and blackmailing universities about access, by means of an access regulator, as contrary to the tradition of academic freedom in Scotland. But the system will not be able to be all that different.
I hope that Westminster, and particularly the Treasury, as well as the Scots Parliament are now taking these facts on board. The devolved matters in the White Paper are not, as the Government claim, only about England.
6.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I too welcome this debate. I declare an interest as chairman of the governing body of Chester College of Higher Education, which is a popular college within the Church college set-up, with 7,000 students and growing. With the other Church colleges and universities we make an important contribution to fair and widening access. According to the HEFCE figures across our sector the numbers of undergraduate entrants from state schools, social classes III. IV and V and also from low participation neighbourhoods exceed national averages.
That is due as much to the strong sense of community in the Church colleges as to specific initiatives, because the more vulnerable students find us attractive. It is also worth pointing out that the new Church schools which are currently being founded are often in areas of comparative deprivation, one of which is in the diocese of Chester. There have been about 25 new secondary schools in recent years. We welcome the challenges brought by the social setting of these schools.
The White Paper has a good deal to say about freedom and choice in higher education, and understandably so. However, one intrinsic problem is

293
that societies which emphasise freedom and choice to the neglect of mutual and communal values usually end up generating an overemphasis upon winners and losers. That has been the story in our schools. The publishing of relatively unrefined league tables, for example, has tended to brand certain schools as losers. It is then easy for a vicious cycle of low expectations to develop, with the consequence that the statistics for widening access to higher education remain stubbornly low from areas served by schools which are lower down the league tables.
We need generally to work for a higher sense of dignity and honour in all aspects of education. The White Paper, in dealing with higher education, concentrates in a rather unbalanced way upon the economic aspects of higher education in relation both to the individual and to society. It rather downplays the wider cultural importance of our universities and colleges in the setting of education in general. But the prospect of a greater earning potential should be only one, and perhaps not the most important motive, for entering higher education.
I turn to the impact of freedom and deregulation in higher education. The move towards deregulation of the higher education sector has much to be said for it, although many in the sector will believe it when they see it. If the Government are to achieve their targets for higher education they need the broad spectrum of existing institutions to flourish, and not some at the expense of others. Recent deregulation of entry quotas, for example, seems to have led to a great rise in admission numbers to certain large civic universities at the expense of some of the newer and smaller institutions—the very institutions which actually have a better record on widening access.
The balance between regulation and untrammelled freedom for institutions to develop is a sensitive balance to strike. It is all too easy to find that choices inadvertently narrow. The prospect of variable top-up fees may seem at first sight to offer the prospect of an increased choice for students, but the reality may turn out to be that most institutions will seek eventually—sooner or later—to charge the maximum fee for most courses. The sheer economics of higher education point to that scenario.
Will that deter the very students whom the Government would most like to see enter higher education? The reintroduction of a maintenance grant for some students is welcome in itself but could be more than swallowed up by the additional fees that are likely to emerge. The average student debt is likely to grow sharply. The increase in the threshold to £15,000 for repayments is welcome, but surely it is still rather on the low side. For low-paid workers outside certain favoured areas of public sector employment, repayment will be a major blow. perhaps at a time when they are struggling with a mortgage and a young family. In saying that, I do not doubt that the principle of students making a contribution to the cost of higher education is right, but only within the limits which serve the good of society as a whole.
294
The additional money cannot simply conic from government. The White Paper rightly calls attention to the generally poor endowments of British universities. The comparisons with North America are striking. Outside Oxford and Cambridge the endowments are small: the 10th best endowed of our universities equates to the 300th best endowed north American institution. The White Paper says that the Government will support institutions to build endowments in a range of ways. It will be good to hear more detail from the Minister on that point. For example, do we not need to work harder for a major change in our society towards charitable donations in general? We have nothing approaching the North American culture in that regard. The assumption is still widely there that at the end of the day— usually the Government—will be expected to pay.
The Government have made some creative changes to the taxation of charitable giving in order to encourage such a change of culture, including a continuation of the 10 per cent premium on the Give As You Earn scheme beyond the tax reclaimed as such. But, frankly, the message has yet to get across. With the general tax reforms of the past 20 years, the better off in our society are better off than ever, but a culture of charitable giving has yet properly to emerge.
There is a real challenge here. Actually the universities will benefit, partly because of the link between higher earnings and education and the loyalty of students to their former universities. I hope that in this and in other ways the initiatives in the White Paper will be developed and complemented.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, ever since the Robbins report, it seems to have been taken for granted that pushing as many 18 year-olds as possible into university is a good thing.
Many school leavers now feel that they do not have a choice concerning university. Some feel unable to incur a huge student debt at the end of their course and these are lost to the system. Others feel pressured into going to university—pressured by their schools. which want to look good in the league tables; pressured by the false promise that the possession of a degree will automatically enable them to get a good job; and pressured by society's belittling of jobs that do not require a degree, though they may require a high level of skill, intelligence and training.
Many students do not want to be at university. All they want is the piece of paper they are given at the degree ceremony. A surprising number are so uninterested that they will settle for almost any course that is perceived by them—however mistakenly—as easy. Some may not be up to the demands of a university course, having reached their peak at A-level. Enormous pressure is put on students prior to higher education, resulting in some peaking too early. Sadly. many of us have seen that relatively modern phenomenon among our young people.
Unfortunately, with the funding of universities now being based on student numbers, those institutions are desperate to fill their courses, and the consideration of

295
whether a university degree is really the best choice for any one individual does not seem to have the attention that it once had.
University courses go on too long. The funding problem would not be so acute if students were able to put more hours into their daily study, so that courses could be dramatically condensed. I recently asked a student how many lectures she had a week. I was told, "Only one, at nine o'clock on Monday". Not surprisingly, she did not turn up that often. To me, that is a scandal and a waste of human and financial resources.
Most students now feel constrained to find a job—not just during holidays but during term time—to try to keep their student debt under control. Often, those jobs keep them up late at night. Sometimes they are day jobs, which mean that they cannot attend classes. All jobs eat into their study time. That affects even the ablest students; for the weaker ones it can be detrimental to the quality of their student work.
Those factors, together with the universal move to examination by course work, have led to an explosion in cheating. There are numerous websites from which it is possible to download essays on almost any university topic and there are many individuals who openly advertise their services as writers of course work in exchange for a fee.
Universities should be the nucleus of our academic talent and potential in their ever-challenging role of competing in a global community of excellence. I do not believe that one can be considered a success in life only if one studies for a degree. There are better ways in which we can provide for the future of our young people. Going to university is not like a superior form of youth training, nor, to quote Professor Zellick, is it a,
"thoughtless way of getting people off the streets".
I am neither an academic nor an educationist and am probably the only member of my generation in your Lordships' House without an A-level. I did not excel in any way during my schooldays and, as a practical solution to my scholastic lack of achievement, I embarked on a three-year apprenticeship in a well-known biscuit company. I was given the opportunity to work at every job in the company, with the perpetual challenge of doing each to the best of my ability. That apprenticeship changed my life and taught me valuable lessons. When I changed career at the age of 25, I went to university and completed a three-year course crammed into one.
If universities are taking in students in increased numbers who are not suited to academic study, they must lower standards or else suffer high rates of failure. It is now considerably easier to get a degree than it was 20 years ago. That is an unpalatable fact to which academics admit in private. Employers certainly know it. Only in yesterday's Evening Standard a survey revealed that 90 per cent of graduates are turned down for jobs because their applications are full of spelling mistakes.
296
Many big employers used to go round universities on recruiting drives but are now boycotting those universities because they consider them below standard. Graduates have a rude awakening when they find that their business or media studies degree is one of thousands and they cannot get a job—even one remotely close to what they were encouraged to expect. Ironically, they also find that many jobs are closed to them because they are "over-qualified". Universities claim that 80 per cent of their graduates find jobs within a year, but, sadly, many of those are dead-end jobs.
Meanwhile, the country is suffering from a shortage of people qualified in practical skills. Fifty per cent of the UK's middle-ranking companies are suffering from shortages in such skills, which are all so vital to our modern society. Why do we belittle such valuable skills? It is not because they do not pay. A plumber can earn more than a solicitor. I recently got a plumber to fix two washers in my tiny apartment round the corner. I knew that it would be expensive. I received a bill for £120. I related that story to a noble and learned Lord later that day. He told me that he had had exactly the same experience and had said to the plumber, "Gosh, you are more expensive than a lawyer". To which the plumber replied, "I know, because I used to be a lawyer".
We should surely all encourage a really good system of apprenticeships, such as that which exists in Germany, for those of a practical turn of mind, allowing youngsters to start from the age of 15. Rather than pressuring young people into universities for which they are not suited, and producing a surplus of graduates that we do not need, we should balance the educational system and produce people with the skills that the country so desperately needs and requires.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords. I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, on securing this important debate on funding and student choice. As other noble Lords have said, the issue has been debated several times, but the implications of the White Paper on funding must be debated and aired.
The intention in the White Paper to deal with student finance for the long term to open up access to universities is welcome. There is much in it to be commended. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, the understanding that universities are different and need to pursue different missions is indeed encouraging. It is recognised that higher education is under-funded, and that considerably enhanced investment is needed if we are to give students the choice that they deserve.
The White Paper also identifies the real additional costs associated with recruiting and retaining students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Also welcome is the continued support for working partnerships with schools and colleges to enhance the aspirations of all our young people.
Although the lifting of the cap on fees presents some concerns, the fact that there will be no up-front payments for any student entering higher education, and that the repayment mechanism is equitable, is

297
helpful. Furthermore, the introduction of a modest maintenance grant is a first step towards assisting some of the most needy students.
However. I have some concerns. They are based on my experience as Chancellor of De Montfort University in Leicester and Bedford. We have been innovative and successful in widening participation. The students whom we recruit are talented young people from all backgrounds and ethnic origins. but they are often burdened with financial problems. The vast majority of them hold jobs and work long hours to pay for their studies.
It is therefore essential that the proposed changes do not deter students from poorer backgrounds, place intolerable burdens on them or diminish the quality of education that they receive. We all know that students from poor backgrounds tend to be more debt-averse. The Universities UK report, Attitudes to Debt, states that those most averse to debt are from lower socioeconomic classes, lone parents and black and other ethnic minorities.
I am not sure whether the post-graduate repayment scheme will reassure those groups. Moreover, the proposed maintenance grant is insufficient to support those in real financial need. Young people from disadvantaged families will form a minority of recipients of the full grant. The question is whether the maximum payment of £1,000 will be enough incentive to change the attitudes of those who are debt averse.
I turn to the intention in the White Paper to create a differentiated fee structure. Such a fee structure is, again, likely to disadvantage those who are most vulnerable. It would surely be wrong for students whose choice of institution may be limited—perhaps because of the need to study at home, or because of early educational disadvantage—to receive poor higher education experience because the only institutions to which they can apply are themselves poorly funded.
Making the necessary changes to the funding of higher education for the future should not lead to the creation of an under-class of institutions that all but the most vulnerable can afford. Neither opportunity nor student choice will be enhanced if a limited number of high-demand institutions, which draw their students from the best-prepared cohorts, are the only universities with adequate funding for teaching and teaching support. The proposed increase in funding for teaching is modest. I doubt, therefore, whether universities will be able to invest significantly in teaching quality and to increase fees introduced in 2006.
Differential fees carry their own dangers. They create an ever-increasing funding gap between institutions, which will be reflected in the facilities and staff-student ratios. It will be unacceptable if disadvantaged students not only have financial pressures but must also accept a second-class version of higher education driven by a false market of fees.
Similarly, greater focus on research is welcome. But all universities should carry out research, and excellence should be rewarded wherever it is found. All
298
students should have the opportunity to be exposed to scholars and research of high calibre. At De Montfort University, we have successfully developed a strong research culture that supports our academic strengths. Without a commitment to research, it would be difficult to recruit and retain the high-quality staff that we have. That has benefited students. Erosion of funding will damage valuable research and weaken the overall research base. Much more importantly, it will significantly worsen the university experience of many students.
As I said at the outset, there is much to be welcomed in the White Paper and the aspirations that underpin it. But, if we want the experience of higher education to be extended to the talented and the best from all backgrounds, other concerns need to be addressed. I look forward to the Minister's response.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I declare an interest as a governor of the London School of Economics and a member of the court of Lancaster University. I also do some professional work—indeed, with de Montfort University.
Returning to first principles, I wish to ask what we are trying to do and what is our vision of society. It seems that, as we go into the 21st century, a decent United Kingdom is one in which our objective is to ensure that no child born into society goes prematurely to the grave having failed to fulfil his or her potential. Our education system should be there to ensure that. It should enable all youngsters to develop themselves fully, not only professionally but creatively.
Of course society must function, and we need people who will enable it to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, spoke convincingly about that. But we must also remember another aspect of the vision for education: in a decent, civilised society, there is merit in education in its own right as an end in itself. The process and enjoyment of learning is part of living fully. We therefore must be careful when talking about specific dimensions of our education system—it is not either/or. Of course, some people will be creatively fulfilled in craftsmanship or technology; but we must be careful not to limit people to a functional educational experience if they have the potential also to enjoy further education. Therefore, flexibility and interplay between the systems is extremely important.
I wish to make a further point about the basic objectives and vision. We have moved into an age in which we are told that we cannot afford to pay for a convincing, full system of higher education from general taxation. I realise that it may be a forlorn battle at present, but there is a difference between not being able to afford and choosing as a society not to afford. I hope that we will not allow the argument about the emphasis on general taxation to go by default. Education has a crucial role in ensuring the cohesion of society. It is an opportunity for those who enjoy it, but it is an indispensable strength and guarantee for the future effectiveness of society. Because of that, society as a whole should feel a responsibility for ensuring that it is available and that no potential is wasted.

299
Sometimes our agonies about whether or not to have top-up fees are brought upon ourselves because we have run away from the challenge of asking what society needs and should be, and how we will finance that. I do not want to make cheap points, but it seems a poignant moment, when no money is too much to win the war that is coming in Iraq, to wonder why we find so much difficulty in generating the resources to win the battle for humanity at home.
If there is to be a variety of approaches, if there is to be access, and, if everyone with potential is to have the opportunity to develop it, we will need many institutions. In an otherwise commendable and encouraging White Paper, one approach disturbs me: the developing concept of a two-tier university system. Some universities are to be centres of excellence, and others are to teach the masses who want to go to university. That is a disastrous concept.
First, we need very good teachers to bring out the best in people who have not had the opportunity to develop their own self-starting capabilities. We must remember that that is costly, probably more so than teaching self-starters. Secondly, in any lively higher education institution, some research needs to take place, because it feeds, encourages and creates interplay with teachers and ensures quality of work. It is difficult to over-estimate the adverse impact on the morale of any higher education institution told that it is not good enough to involve itself in research and has no part to play in that field. It is a disastrous concept about which we ought to be wary.
To conclude, we are all deeply grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for introducing the debate. I have had many opportunities to hear her at work in higher education, which I have found enjoyable and stimulating. But I was concerned by her market preoccupations. Her anxieties about regulation are understandable on one level, but we have an immense challenge in society. At present, 48 per cent of pupils in the top three social classes go to university, and only 18 per cent in the bottom three social classes do. Is that answering the challenge of human potential, or does it begin to do so? Unless we introduce instruments to ensure that universities do what they should be doing, I am anxious about the extent to which it will really happen.
In my county of Cumbria, on the west coast, we have some of the most deprived communities in the nation. Of course, the problem will not be rectified by universities alone. The problem there is a lack of horizons and a lack of thought that university has any relevance to life. We also have much work to do in the secondary education system. We must include that in our discussion this evening.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I warmly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about the purposes of higher education. However, as he implied, we must be realistic about the extent to which any government will provide the support that we need
300
from taxpayers' funds. For a generation, finance from taxpayers per student has declined steadily, and there is no prospect, I am sad to say, that that trend will reverse. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, on securing the debate, and I agree with her conclusions.
I shall start by talking about the good things in the White Paper. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and other speakers, I applaud the recognition in the White Paper of the diversity of the higher education sector. It is a diversity not just of institutions—the balance between teaching and research, for example—but, essentially, of students and their requirements. My main criticism of the White Paper is that it does not go nearly far enough to recognise that diversity.
The increase in the student's contribution to tuition fees from £1,1000 a year to £3,000 a year—I predict that the great majority of universities will have to adopt it, so that there will not, in effect, be variable fees—will create increased student debt. That level of debt will deter some of the poorer students whom the Government rightly want to bring into higher education.
There is another downside. For our major research universities, the increase will not begin to scratch the surface of the current financial problem. Before I illustrate that with reference to the University of Oxford, I declare an interest as Master of University College. For Oxford, raising the student contribution to £3,000 will bring in extra revenue of £20 million a year when it is in full effect. But, as it can apply only to each new generation of students from 2006 onwards, it comes in over three years—an extra £7 million, say, in each year in the three years from 2006 to 2008. That represents just over 1 per cent of the university's budget—that is, about half the rate of inflation in each year. So if we had to rely on the £3,000, we would go backwards, not forwards.
The Government have fallen squarely between two stools. I say that with some sadness. They have introduced a charge that must be a deterrent to poorer students, while, for a university such as Oxford, the increase has not begun to tackle existing and prospective financial problems. I may be told that it is a first step and that the Government have been courageous in taking it. However, I remind your Lordships that it is a first step that does not even come into effect until 2006 and is then frozen until 2011. It is too small and timid a step.
The only way to ensure that the funding of students does not limit student choice is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, said, to ensure that students are admitted to the university most suitable for them on a needs-blind basis. If students need not face the prospect of debt and can go to the university of their choice, there will be no interference with their choice. We need not despair of achieving that. In my university, we could provide the bursaries necessary from three sources. First, we have our endowments. Secondly, there is what wealthy families could afford to pay by way of fees, for it is absurd that those who

301
have paid up to £20,000 a year in boarding school fees need pay no more than £3,000 a year towards tuition fees at a first-class university. Thirdly, there is alumni support. In my experience, there is no more potent target of appeal to alumni than that of helping today's and tomorrow's students have the benefits that they enjoyed.
It may be objected that, although that would be all right for Oxbridge and some of our great research universities, the younger universities, on which poorer students also depend, could not afford bursaries on that scale. My answer is that the Government should concentrate their help on those universities, enabling them to provide the bursaries that their endowments and alumni support could not provide alone. It may be said that that would prompt some of our research universities to take the Ivy League route. Given what we see across the Atlantic, need we be afraid of that?
It is not only desirable but necessary that the Government be bolder and show more urgency in this matter.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Howe of Idlicote for launching the debate and declare two interests: one as a relatively recently appointed Master of a Cambridge college—more recent than my noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell at Oxford—and the other as Chancellor of a Scottish university.
Like other noble Lords, I thought that there was much in the White Paper to be commended. It was courageous of the Government to grasp the nettle of increasing fees; and to say that there were different types of university and I hat people went to university looking for different things. It may seem ironic that people such as myself, who went to university entirely funded by the state, should say to the present generation that they should pay more for the same privilege, but it is only realistic. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the universities—rather like the railways and some other great British institutions—are chronically underfunded, and university teachers are chronically underpaid. Although I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about the desirability of funding from general taxation, I cannot see it happening in practice. Increasing fees seems more realistic, although that may not be a pleasant message for the students of tomorrow.
I suspect that the increase will mean that more students will choose to stay nearer home. That is a pity, for part of education at that level is to get away from home—but there it is. It would be worse, however, if students of talent were deterred from going to university by increased fees. That is the point on which we should focus. There is, as other noble Lords have said, a need for a vastly increased system of bursaries, so that those who want to go to university and have the talent will not be deterred by the increased fees.
It is encouraging to see that, in the White Paper, the Government say that private endowment of universities should be encouraged. It is depressing to see the contrast
302
between universities here and those in the United States. I saw in the Times Higher Education Supplement that the Sutton Trust had provided a list of the sort of endowments that places such as Harvard had—about £11 billion—compared with Oxford and Cambridge, with approximately £2 billion, Edinburgh, with £160 million, and the other British universities, with much lower figures. That is the area on which we should concentrate.
We can see the effect of some of the bursary schemes in small ways. Recently, I met a group of Aberdeen University students, who have what are called Prince of Wales Scholarships, funded by the Royal Bank of Scotland. Over 75 per cent of those students were from families that had no tradition of going to university. Because of the system of bursaries or scholarships, they were able to go, fitting into that long and wonderful Scottish tradition of the lad, or lass. o' pairts, who is given the chance to go to university and will make a tremendous contribution to the future life of the country as a result.
It is worth pointing out that it is just over 100 years since Andrew Carnegie gave 10 million dollars—then, a king's ransom—to fund a trust that would enable any young person of talent in Scotland to get to a Scottish university—then, there were only the four ancient universities—even if they could not pay the fees. It is that scale of generosity that I believe we should be looking for, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Butler is correct to say that there are places where one can look for it. I suggest, however, that included in that must be further encouragement from the Government to do exactly what they state in the White Paper that they want to see. It would be helpful if the Minister, when she winds up the debate, could tell us a little more about how the Government intend to promote that kind of encouragement.
The other choice is the one that is the other way round: it is the university choosing its students. As one who has only recently re-entered the English higher education scene and who has read so much —including a good deal of criticism—about the system of choice, in particular at Oxford and Cambridge, I have to say that my experience in Cambridge is one of a tremendous effort being put into trying to attract students of talent from a far wider catchment area. That catchment covers the whole country and embraces all kinds of schools. The university is painstaking in its efforts aimed at trying to choose the right people: those who have talent, have built a good record and who have potential. The university is able to select partly by interview. Some universities cannot do this. A huge effort is put into the process, although of course there is no room for complacency and much more needs to be done. Nevertheless, an immense effort is being made.
I do not believe that the curate's egg part of the White Paper, if I may put it that way, regarding the Access Regulator is the right way to go about it. Rather than that kind of control, universities need encouragement—and help with the dispelling of myths—in order to widen access.

303
Finally, perhaps I may put on my Scottish mortar board and follow the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, in asking the Minister what consideration has been given to the Scottish dimension. As the noble Baroness pointed out, as a result of the proposals in the White Paper we shall see a tremendous play-across from what is done in England and Wales to what happens to universities in Scotland. It would be interesting to learn from the Minister what discussions took place with the Scottish Executive and what consideration was given to the effects across the Border of the White Paper here.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lady Howe for initiating the debate. The recent White Paper merits careful attention and extends thinking on higher education with some important new ideas. I should declare an interest as someone who has worked in universities in various capacities for most of my working life. Perhaps what is most relevant to what I have to say is that for more than a decade I worked as an Oxford admissions tutor.
I wish to address those parts of the White Paper that are concerned with access. It states that:
"We must do everything that can be done to make sure that everyone who has the potential to benefit from a university education has the opportunity to do so".
That is a sentiment which everyone, both inside and outside the university world, would wholeheartedly endorse.
The White Paper points out that young people from the three lower socio-economic groups in the UK are significantly less likely to go to university than their counterparts from other groups. However, and most significantly, it notes that among students who have achieved good A-levels, there is no difference between the groups. The success gap therefore largely reflects disparities in our schools. The White Paper recognises that.
However, the White Paper goes on to conclude that universities should first identify and admit poorly prepared but able students and then, by providing special help, make up for inadequate schooling. Many universities have been doing that for years where they thought it would work, but in many cases it simply will not work. Furthermore, those universities that wish to charge an additional fee are singled out for special attention. They can charge such a fee if, and only if, their admissions arrangements are approved by a new admissions regulator.
The most difficult aspect of the admission of students from deprived backgrounds is actually getting them to apply. If they do not apply, then they cannot be admitted. I can say categorically that every institution in which I have worked, both in this country and overseas, has tried hard to attract the most able students, whatever their background—and that is not a new phenomenon. Some 30 years ago, my noble friend Lady Warnock and I were despatched to
304
the north of England by the Oxford Colleges' Admissions Office in a small and nasty hired car. We were to visit schools that had little tradition of sending their pupils to Oxford, tell them more about the university and encourage them to apply. I have to confess that I recall casting an aspersion on my noble friend's map reading. It was a mistake.
What influences young people's thinking about university? The main influences are teachers, friends and family culture. Families with weak educational roots tend not to favour higher education, but that varies significantly between different ethnic groups. Affordability and the very idea of a student grant, by comparison with the relative affluence of friends who are enjoying their first wages, can weigh heavy. To be frank, if anybody can do anything about those influences, it is the school, which knows the circumstances and potential of each of its pupils.
When it comes to choosing a university, the same influences apply, but now prospectuses, campus visits, websites and a plethora of guides—both official and unofficial—all come into play. In my experience, however, students from first-time university families often contemplate the prospect with some trepidation. The attraction of going to university near home is strong. They may know people who are there already, they can keep up with friends who are not going to university and, if things do not work out, they feel that they can slip back into normal life without too much disruption or loss of face.
Universities can and do encourage such students to take the larger step of moving away from home. I believe, however, that this must be done with great caution. Removing students from the security of their home environment, with the confidence and support that that may bring, and making them face new social challenges at a time when they are also taking on tough new academic challenges, is not an obvious recipe for success.
I would ask the Government to approach this matter with a light touch so that perverse incentives do not make a situation which is already difficult even worse. I ask also that institutions such as Imperial College, my former institution, should not be distracted from its long-term strenuous efforts to attract more women into science and engineering. If there are real concerns, by all means conduct an inquiry into university admissions procedures to establish what is going on. However, I believe that the Government will be surprised at the time and trouble those who are doing the job I did some 30 years ago take to encourage applicants from non-traditional backgrounds, and the efforts they make to allow for the deficiencies in their preparation. But please think very hard before adding the bureaucratic burden of another regulator to an already over-regulated sector of our society.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, first I should declare an interest as the Senior Vice-Principal of the University of Aberdeen. But I should make it clear that in no way do I

305
speak for the university in this debate. However, I speak with some trepidation this evening, sandwiched as I am between my Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, and the most distinguished graduate of my university, the noble Lord. Lord Sutherland of Houndwood.
I also wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on her very deft drafting of the title of the debate because it raises the issue of whether there is a British higher education system. I believe that there is, and of course that issue has some resonance for those noble Lords who participated in the endless debates conducted on the Scotland Bill. In saying that, I look across to my friend but opponent, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour.
The paradox is that higher education is devolved. It is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. In passing, it might be worth pointing out that in the 1979 proposals higher education was a reserved matter. However, that it is devolved does not necessarily mean that it is prudent to develop major divergences in policy north and south of the Border. I think that that is especially the case in higher education, because in terms of staff appointments it is quite simply a single market and increasingly in terms of student choice it is becoming much more a single market.
If there were to be major policy divergences, the inevitable consequence would be a destructive destabilisation in the system as a whole. One worrying divergence which will eventually have an impact on student choice is the issue of the funding of research. There have been criticisms of how research will be funded in England. However, I believe that the Government have addressed that issue seriously. They have tried to find a solution, the objective of which will be that a funding system will be put in place which will enable high quality research to be supported at an adequate level. Perhaps I might add that I wish that the Government had gone along the route of the graduate tax rather than top-up fees.
The worry is that in Scotland perhaps other elements of the higher education agenda have dominated and the securing of high quality research has slipped lower down the list of priorities in Scotland than is the case in England. Indeed, there is the disaster scenario that in the not too distant future we shall be faced with the prospect of the coach containing prospective students travelling north from England seeking cheaper degrees in Scotland colliding with the coach travelling south from Scotland containing our highly qualified and best academics seeking better paid and better supported jobs in England. That would be a disaster.
In the whole of this debate on the future of higher education there has been a worrying conflation of two concepts. One is that it has been equating intellectual elitism with social elitism. That is a fundamental mistake. One is good and one is bad. We must ensure that we do not have a system built around—or which makes worse—social elitism. Ultimately, to a significant extent, higher education must be about intellectual elitism. It is through that that we make progress as a society.
306
I seek from the Minister an assurance, not in policy terms but in relation to the machinery of government. When significant policies are being developed, either in England or in the devolved administrations, hard work should be done to ensure that both administrations are aware of the implications of their policy on the other administration. In my brief experience of government, that is asking quite a lot. However, it is something that needs to be done and work needs to be done on it. If it is not, we shall slip almost in an unnoticed way to a situation where we shall have that dangerous destabilisation which will not be to the benefit of either system and will be a major disbenefit to the whole of British higher education.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Howe for introducing this debate. I want to make some rather simple points. My first is that universities are very different from schools. That is obvious. One way in which they are different is that university is not compulsory and school is. I had great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Palmer when he said that probably too many people go to university who do not really want to and who do not benefit from it. Another difference is that in the background, from the undergraduate's point of view of university, there should be the ongoing stimulation and the knowledge that there is proper, original research—not just in the sciences but in the arts too. However. just as important is another difference, which is that universities. unlike schools, do not have a common curriculum or common examinations. Therefore, it matters crucially to a potential undergraduate which university or she actually aspires to attend.
Whatever we may say about the defects of the schools system in this country, there still are emerging from the sixth forms of maintained schools and independent schools extraordinarily clever, dedicated and enthusiastic students who know what they want to do and know which university they want to attend.
I must declare an interest. I know that there are these students because I set and examine a yearly inter-school essay prize offered by the Girls Day School Trust. The competition is open only to scholars of the trust schools, many of whom are in receipt both of scholarships and of bursaries and whose parents would never be able to afford to send them to an independent school without that support. The degree of academic ambition and precise knowledge of how those students want to pursue their studies shines through these essays and never fails, year after year. to move me.
If students—perhaps especially girls, who are, on the whole, sensitive to their own financial problems and those of their family—feel compelled to attend their local university so that they may live at home and perhaps continue with a part-time job that they worked at while they were at school, the crucial factor of choice of university to which they aspire to go is in danger of being removed.

307
One of the good points about the White Paper—and many noble Lords have noticed it—is that it is now officially, and without shame, acknowledged that all universities are not the same. All are not equally academically inspirational. Therefore, there are students whose aim is not to go to just any university and get just any degree, but to go specifically to Imperial College or Warwick or Cambridge or Oxford to follow courses which are not exactly to be found elsewhere.
I think that to bring it about that this choice is no longer realistically available to students will starve the academic world of probably the most original minds. The students will not get what they deserve and will not get what they are capable of achieving and the country as a whole will thus be impoverished immeasurably. Above all, what we need—again, this point has been made by many noble Lords—is a way of supporting, through government funding and through new endowments, not just those students who are poor but those who are poor and properly are already to be considered members of the intellectual elite. The distinction between the intellectual and the social elite seems to me to be of the greatest possible importance in this debate about how students may be admitted to the universities that they really want to go to.
7.19 p.m.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on securing the debate on this important topic, which has been of so much public concern since the publication of the White Paper on The Future of Higher Education The links between student funding and student choice are issues which concern all of us but perhaps, above all, parents whose children may go to university in the next few years.
Unfortunately, I believe that so far media discussion of these links has served us poorly by over-emphasising an over-simplified relationship between choice and funding. Much discussion has centred on a scenario in which Russell Group universities raise fees to £3,000 a year, but others do not, and there are no bursaries or fee rebates. That scenario is supposed to lead to the famous "two tier" system. I have no idea why people think that it would lead to two tiers, but it is meant to be a scenario in which students from poorer homes cannot go to certain universities.
There has been extraordinarily little consideration, so far, of the factors that might influence universities in setting fees. It is simply assumed that Russell Group universities will set the higher fees. But let me note that those who compete for the very small pool of very keen and able young scientists are highly unlikely to set a fee that deters those people from attending their universities. Let me note also that in the US much of the most prestigious undergraduate education is provided by institutions which concentrate on teaching. We can take nothing for granted about who will set which level of fee.
308
Thinking about worst-case scenarios produces shock-horror copy, but I am sure that it hides many of the real issues. I believe that the White Paper deserves more serious attention. Like other noble Lords, I, too, welcome that individuals will pay only after graduation and then on an income contingent basis, ensuring that those who choose walks of life and vocations where their pay is low never repay the loan.
Secondly, the White paper does not propose fee levels. It permits variation within a capped fee structure. We have had serious arguments that possibly the cap is set too low. But let us note that at present no variation is permitted. The richest students receive nearly as much subsidy as the poorest: where parental income is below £20,000 per annum, students receive a tuition contribution from public funds of £1,100 a year and the right to borrow a bit more. Under the new proposals, those with parental income below £10,000 per annum would receive an additional £1,000 a year. Therefore, the debts for the very poorest students at universities charging the maximum fee would rise by £900 per annum, or £2,700 for a three-year degree course. For others, it would rise by £1,900 per annum, or £5,700 for a three-year degree course.
The proposed threshold for the new subsidy is unrealistically low, the cut-off being fixed by a joint parental income of £10,000. I understand that there have been further conversations and I wonder whether the Minister will tell the House what consideration is being given to setting a more realistic income threshold for this payment to students from poorer families.
The White Paper also mentions student bursaries and states that universities will be permitted, indeed encouraged, to established a charging structure and then to provide bursaries for those least able to pay. At present, many universities do not have the funds to do so. Charging a fee of £3,000 might enable them to divert some of that money to fund some bursaries for the poorest. Bursaries are the most concrete and effective action that universities can take to improve access and I declare an interest and some experience as the head of a Cambridge college where almost one third of home undergraduates currently receive a bursary under the intercollegiate Newton Bursary Scheme. I am glad to say that the University of Cambridge has already made a commitment to needs blind admissions.
The White Paper has encouraging things to say about endowment raising and its importance to university autonomy. Endowment is vital for building bursary schemes and I wonder whether the Minister would agree that those of us who were at university before 1995, largely or wholly at public expense, ought to help to fund bursaries? Would she be able to comment on how the Government will promote or incentivise endowment building for bursaries?
Let us also remember that students choose; they choose courses and universities. It used to be said that they wanted to go about 100 miles from home— allowing for home visits but not for parents dropping in. The picture has changed. Many students, particularly mature students, prefer a local over a

309
residential university. Others prefer urban or rural, a large or a small institution, or a university towns with low rents. Those choices belong to students. But if they are to be left to students, admissions must be a matter of fair process and not of social quotas. Rural and small town universities cannot attract students who seek big city life; city universities cannot attract those for whom sport and country activities are important. Does the Minister accept that respect for student choice means that we must welcome and accept diversity in the social composition of students in different universities?
Some will say that an access regulator is needed even so. I believe it is not. Admissions tutors and officers are not stupid people. In my experience at Essex and at Cambridge. they try to admit those who show promise, taking account of all evidence, including evidence of less-effective schooling. It is insulting and implausible to imagine that they are covertly working to discriminate unfairly— their colleagues would hardly thank them for admitting students of lower potential. Yet at present they are condemned if they rely solely on A-level evidence and condemned if they do not.
The serious debate that we must have is about providing the evidence for admissions tutors. We are not providing it at present. Noble Lords may know that head teachers' reports are sometimes blandly uninformative for fear, apparently, of disclosure and litigation. Personal statements have a boiler-plated feel to them. Universities have got into that position on the assumption that if they are allowed adequate evidence, they will use it unfairly. Meanwhile, most universities are not staffed to interview. Critics who urge exclusive reliance on A-levels have nothing to propose where A-levels do not discriminate. Critics who urge switching to new tests have not established their educational effect, their "coachability", or their predictive value. Does the Minister agree that a serious debate about university admissions criteria cannot begin until we set aside the fantasy that universities are neglecting or misusing evidence available to them?
7.26 p.m.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Howe for introducing the debate with such clarity and insight. I want also at the outset to endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, about the impact of what happens here on other parts of the United Kingdom—and I deliberately put it in that way.
If your Lordships will indulge me, I would like to be facetious for a moment— just for a moment. If you were to go down to the Department for Education and Skills and search carefully in the building, I suspect that you would find somewhere a playroom. A new game has been devised for playing in the playroom and the three players are the Secretary of State, the Minister for higher education and the Higher Education Funding Council. The game is called "Quota Hokey-cokey". You put your quota in; you take your quota out; you put your quota in; and you shake it all about. Your Lordships know how the words go.
310
I am not being facetious just because it is late in the evening or because I enjoy it. I want to highlight the fact that at this stage in the debate, after the publication of a White Paper in January to which I paid tribute, three of the major players in the arena seem still to be undecided about the role of quotas. I hope—and I am sure that we will find reassurance today—that quotas are off the Government's agenda. It would be reassuring to know that they are off the agenda of the funding council, too. Such public disagreements are symptoms of something deeper: first, a significant degree of uncertainty about where to go; and, secondly, a wish none the less, a conviction, that something must be done and done quickly.
In the White Paper—its many positive points have been well-catalogued today—there is a major flaw. The major flaw is that two separate issues have been confused. One is the funding of universities—and good things are said about that—and the other is the need for access and opportunity for all our young people—and good things are said about that. But they are tied together in unhealthy ways. The difficulty is that there is a danger of a degree of tunnel vision.
In tunnel vision, one focuses on one aspect of one problem while perhaps out of the corner of one's eye seeing the reflection of another problem. I shall concentrate not on funding—others have covered it well—but on the issue of access.
As has been mentioned, university recruitment and admission systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It is not in the interests of universities to ignore students with huge potential, and they know it. But we face a common problem that certain areas of the country and certain parts of society are hiding individual talent. I warm to the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that access must be widely available to students with real potential.
However, the Government White Paper assumes that the way to deal with the issue is by a mixture of bribing and bullying universities and by putting in place yet more regulation through the access regulator. If there are no quotas, what criteria will the access regulator use when he assesses whether or not universities will be allowed to charge top-up fees? As I say, there is a danger of tunnel vision.
Let me give an example. I shall not name the local authority involved but the situation will have arisen many times throughout the country. One local authority has a failure of standards among 14 year-olds in the capacity to write. The standard required of these 14 year-olds is minimum, but 35 per cent of them fail to reach it. It is a minimum standard reached by many children before they leave primary school. So it is a real problem.
It is not a matter of universities trying a little harder and pulling in a few more of such students, the problem has to be tackled further down the system at a much earlier starting point. If in that authority 35 per cent fail a particular criterion, what about the next 35 per cent? Presumably we are meant to recruit those. Remedial help is available in universities—it has been

311
for years—but it will not solve a problem of that dimension. It is a problem that has to be tackled in different ways.
If you look at the league tables of educational attainment you will find that certain areas of the country which contain a high proportion of people in social groups C2, D and E are at the bottom of those tables. Fine—but let us not restrict ourselves to that. If you look at other league tables for the same parts of the country and for the same groups, you will find that they are at the bottom of the league tables for health, diet, employment and housing. These matters are not irrelevant to the issue of education and a lack of aspiration.
If that is so, what is my message? I have one more minute so I cannot give the whole story, but I would strongly recommend, as did my noble friend Lord Oxburgh, that resources should be targeted further down the system. There should be projects and task forces—for example, I commend the work of the Sutton Trust and Peter Lampl who funds that trust—that enter into the community. Instead of saying to the universities, "You must deal with this problem", which is probably the worst thing to do, we should go to the schools and deal with the good head teachers— the ones who are achieving results in these areas—and ask them what resources they would find helpful. If we are to face up to the problem, targeting resources to schools would be a much more creative way of dealing with the problem than simply threatening the university system.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Howe for initiating the debate. I much admired her bold opening speech.
In place of a declaration of interest, I acknowledge my good fortune almost 60 years ago, as a working-class lad, in winning a free place from Tottenham Grammar School to Queens' College Cambridge, of which my noble friend Lord Oxburgh had the even better good fortune to become president some 20 years ago. He accepts no responsibility for my speech.
As experience among my family, acquaintances and friends demonstrates, there are many youngsters and many callings for which other forms of education, training or qualification offer a better preparation than a conventional degree. Many prosper—even becoming Prime Ministers or, better still, entrepreneurs—who would have been frustrated by a formal, protracted university course of the kind many of us have enjoyed.
My opposition to new Labour's dream of coralling half of all school-leavers into academic institutions has been confirmed by the rise in drop-out rates in some institutions to 30 to 40 per cent. I am not attracted by the lofty condescension of politicians, especially those from public schools, that youngsters who miss higher education are somehow doomed to fail in life. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, put paid to that particular delusion.
312
The failure of many working-class school leavers to win a good university place surely owes something to old Labour's earlier dream of transforming education by abolishing grammar schools and imposing a comprehensive doctrine of non-selection, non-streaming, non-learning-by-rote, non-facing-the-front-of-the-class and other progressive nonsense preached by "professors of education".
It is now well over a century since our Victorian forebears invented universal, compulsory. free state education as a panacea for the elevation of their masters. One of its prophets, Professor Nassau Senior from Oxford, wrote in 1861:
"We may look forward to the time when the labouring population may be safely entrusted with the education of their own children".
He continued:
"The assistance and superintendence of the Government [is] only a means of preparing the labouring classes for a better but remote state of things—in the latter part of the 20th century—when that assistance and superintendence shall no longer be necessary".
It seems to me that Professor Senior's forecast and his confidence in our abilities have not been fulfilled.
Fortunately, you do not have to be an economist to grasp that, even at Christmas, free gifts come at the expense of free choice. The plain truth, in my view, is that only a customer who pays directly has the freedom to take his money to an alternative supplier if he is not satisfied. However, since the state enjoys a monopoly of so-called "public services", it can supply them inefficiently and make us pay for them through taxes, so depriving all but the well-off of the cash to pay privately.
The effect is that consumers are conscripted on a "like it or lump it basis" to these institutions where, if they are not satisfied. they can only lobby for more to be spent on free services. As we have heard, the state will never have enough money to supply free services in the quantity or quality consumers would choose for themselves. As universities are at last discovering, when the state pays the bill the party politicians call the tune.
It was a fear of a further constriction on the prized independence of universities that drove the late Lord Beloff and a group of bolder academic spirits to establish the private University of Buckingham in 1976, a matter to which my noble friend Lady Howe referred.
But the success of that institution has not weaned other dons from the comfortable enjoyment of their port and perks, to cut the umbilical cord and ascend the path to independence. No wonder Margaret Hodge thought that she could now get away with tightening the screw by imposing quotas for working-class places, to be filled by lowering entry standards. As it happens, Charles Clarke. as Secretary of State, has for the time being issued a soothing disclaimer, apparently on the instructions of the Prime Minister, whose civilising and moderating influence may not always be able to save us.
I conclude with two questions. First, why cannot the better universities see the writing on the wall before their backs are pressed further up against it?

313
Secondly, why should not Cambridge—my university—give a lead in reclaiming independence by urging a mixed system of loans, bursaries, tax allowances and education vouchers? The aim should be to enable all qualified students to meet the fees and thereby enjoy equal choice, which can be guaranteed only by direct payment.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for initiating this debate. It has proved to be wider ranging than I thought—I had assumed that we would concentrate on student finance. It fact, the debate has ranged across the whole of the White Paper. Like others, I find the White Paper something of a curate's egg. Some parts I welcome, particularly the emphasis on the importance of research, on extra funding to universities and on teaching.
Like others, I, too, welcome the recognition that, when we are moving towards a system of mass higher education, there is a diversity of institutions and of students to fit into those institutions and that we need this diversity of institutions to meet the students' wide range of needs. That said, I am slightly surprised that what I see as the central paradox of the White Paper has not received more attention. The central paradox is that the two main objectives seem to contradict each other. How is it possible to reconcile encouraging more young people, especially from low-income homes, to go into higher education, while at the same time seeking to fund the expansion in higher education and other needs in the sector by effectively imposing a tax on those same students?
Ever since the Government produced their post-Dearing report on the concept of tuition fees, we on these Benches have been warning them that they cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot simultaneously raise the price of higher education and expect demand to increase, particularly demand from lower-income participants.
Research recently published by the Centre for the Economics of Education at the department shows that during the 1990s, while participation in higher education increased rapidly, it was the middle classes who benefited. Professor Machin, who undertook the research, is quoted in The Times Higher Education Supplement as saying:
"As income gaps have widened, any positive link between education and family income will disproportionately benefit children from richer families and disadvantage children from poorer families".
For all their efforts to increase the participation of lower-income groups in higher education, the figures for 2002–03 are little better than those for 1997–98. In Scotland, however, where no tuition fees have been introduced, there have been notable improvements.
We thought the Government had learned their lesson. Their manifesto at the 2001 election stated:
"We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them".
314
After a bruising election campaign in which he discovered how unpopular was the Government's regime of tuition fees and loans but no grants, the Prime Minister promised reform. The loans, in particular, have proved difficult for students.
Margaret Hodge, the Minister responsible for higher education, said in the House of Commons as recently as January this year:
"We accept that both large up-front payments and fear of debt are factors that inhibit some young people from lower-income backgrounds from attending university".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/03; col. 307.]
Fear of debt is the big issue here. Then what do the Government do? They introduce top-up fees up to £3,000, with the extra £1,900 on top of the basic £1,100 not means tested but added to student loans, with grants of a maximum of £1,000 a year, but only for those whose parents' incomes are less than £10,000. That applies only to some 7 per cent of students. Why are the Government introducing grants which are less than the educational maintenance allowance that they are paying to further education and sixth-form students?
Needless to say, this has proved a doubly unpopular package for students. The £3,000 top-up fee, which it is clear from what many of your Lordships were saying most universities intend to charge, means that the average student loan debt on graduation will rise from the present £12,000 or so to about £21,000. Many students have overdrafts as well. While the repayment threshold rises from £10,000 to £15,000, which we are very pleased about, it is still below the average graduate starting pay of £18,000 and takes, at that level, a swingeing 9 per cent from earnings. That means that a young graduate starting work at £18,000, say, will be paying an effective marginal rate of tax higher than anyone else. As the Daily Mail remarked on the day following the White Paper's publication, why are we expecting our young graduates to pay a marginal rate of tax which is higher than we are charging millionaires?
Even at that rate, those on low earnings in occupations such as charities, nursing, teaching, and women who work part time while bringing up children will find that the process of debt repayment is a continuing commitment over their lifetime. Effectively, it will hang round their necks. These young people are, here in the South-East, looking at an average house price of £200,000 and are seeking mortgages often close to that sum. It is no wonder that we have so much trouble recruiting for occupations such as radiographers and physiotherapists, let alone nurses, teachers and, of course, university teachers. The Government talk about golden hellos for the public sector, but I wonder how far they will be prepared to write off this amount of debt.
Even more extraordinary is that, while acknowledging that fear of debt is real for lower-income students, the Government introduce a package which increases debts for students and simultaneously announce that access— the term that has become the euphemism for increasing the proportion of students from low-income homes—is a key objective.

315
Universities are to be set tough targets, to be monitored by an "access regulator" and punished, if they do not succeed, by not being allowed to charge top-up fees. So much for the independence of our universities. The Government are saying that they need foundation hospitals because a centralised NHS cannot run everything, but they cannot keep their fingers out of the education pie.
If ever there were a mad and bad idea, it is this. It is unnecessary, because the HEFCE already monitors access and brings pressure to bear through present funding procedures. It is offensive because it interferes with the rights of universities to set their own admissions procedures and leads to the sort of silly rows we are seeing over Bristol. A-level, by itself, has never been and will never be an adequate measure of ability. Universities have always considered school references and the student's account of his or her wider interests and activities alongside A-level results when considering academic potential—which is what they are looking for. They want high quality students, and if we are to have a high quality university sector, it is vital that we trust them to make their own judgments and to be measured by results.
The Government's package has pleased neither students nor universities. Indeed, increasingly, the whole package shows all the signs of a compromise which is all too easily becoming unstitched. Universities wanted freedom to raise extra money. Some knew they could raise that by charging top-up fees, and they got the £3,000 cap, which now looks like being accepted by everyone. The Chancellor was worried about the disincentive effect of the extra loans and argued for a graduate tax, but compromised on the access tsar, a post which is universally unpopular.
Only today we hear the Russell Group arguing that it will not raise sufficient money for their needs. In a radio broadcast soon after the publication of the White Paper, the Secretary of State admitted that by the time the additional costs of mounting loans had been taken into account, top-up fees will bring in only an extra £400 to £500 million for the sector—far short of the £1.5 billion a year needed by the universities.
That brings me to the core issue that lies behind the exercise. As we rehearsed in the debate in early February, universities have been starved of funds for 25 years. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. During that time, student numbers have doubled and so has the number of students to each member of staff, but salaries and infrastructure have not kept pace. A huge backlog of maintenance and renewal is needed for the physical infrastructure. The permanent workforce in the sector is ageing and failing to renew itself. Increasingly, the sector is relying for both teaching and research on non-permanent contract staff. As the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons in December:
"In the long run it is going to be difficult to maintain a really strong university sector … unless we are sure that we are able to attract and recruit people on decent salaries".
316
That is the root of it. We need more money in the sector to renew the physical and human infrastructure. The money is not forthcoming from the Government. The HEFCE settlement is bringing in new money. The 6 per cent a year sounds splendid, but by the time we allow for the money going to research and other special initiatives—I am very pleased to see money going to research—there is very little for salaries and very little increase in the unit funding per student if the science budget is taken out. The new money is still three years away. It is still jam tomorrow, not jam today.
Since 1981, the proportion of GDP going to higher education has fallen from 1.33 per cent to 1.1 per cent. It is time we restored that proportion.
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for introducing the debate. It was clear when the White Paper was produced on 22nd January that there was an air of real frustration around the Chamber, some of which has been displayed today. However, the noble Baroness has created this opportunity for further discussion on higher education, for which we thank her most warmly. We also congratulate her on the powerful support she has secured from her Benches in the debate.
Sir Colin Lucas, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, wrote in his foreword to the university's annual report for the past year:
"Much has been said, by many people, about the difficulties that this country's universities face. These are fundamentally twofold: first, the uncertainties about the Government policy and second, the issues of funding".
He ended:
"We look forward to the White Paper with the greatest of interest".
We now have the White Paper and there remains much confusion—some of it, I am afraid, created by Ministers making statements and counter-statements about aspects of the policy set out in the White Paper. For example, referring to widening access to achieve the 50 per cent target, Mrs Hodge, the Minister for Higher Education, said. not in the most elegant language:
"I am going to do a target on closing the gap. I'm actually going to set a target where we want to get to by 2010".
She went on:
"It would probably take two or three months to decide exactly what form a target would take".
However, we understand that the Secretary of State, Mr Clarke, moved swiftly, by forcing Mrs Hodge to perform a U-turn. Within a very short time she was quoted as saying:
"setting a target would be inappropriate and therefore there are no plans to introduce one".
However, I must ask the Minister whether anyone has told HEFCE about this. Its press release issued on 14th March states:
"all institutions will be expected to contribute to achieving national objectives in this area",

317
the area in question being the widening of access. That has been interpreted as setting targets. We all know that such judgments on whether institutions are meeting national participation objectives will be linked to additional funding or, worse, financial penalties. Where is the academic freedom in that approach? Does it not breach the Further and Higher Education Act 1992?
Then there is the growing evidence of bias against talented and academically able students who just happen to live in a socially desirable postcode area, or whose parents just happen to have attended university. Private schools, and even the best performing state schools, also suffer from the same prejudice.
I am not arguing against widening access or against seeking ways of testing for potential in addition to taking into account A-levels. David Thomas, wrote in the Sunday Telegraph on 26th January:
"There is to be a new access regulator, as if access needed regulating by anything other than the results of an honest examination system".
Further on, he wrote:
"Last week's policy announcements belong to the same ignoble tradition. They are profoundly condescending to working class students, since they imply that they cannot succeed on their merits alone".
At Question Time in another place on 26th February, the Prime Minister did not follow the policy of the Secretary of State for Education when my honourable friend Chris Grayling, MP, asked him:
"There are increasing reports of pupils of high ability and achievement being turned down by universities because of their social background. How would the Prime Minister justify that to the people who are losing out?"
The Prime Minister replied:
"The simple point is that I would not. If universities are doing that. they are wrong. What is more, people should go to university based on their merit, whatever their class background. That is what should happen".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/03; cols. 256–57.]
I agree with the Prime Minister.
Will the M mister tell the House why parental income, parental address, parental educational qualifications or the type of school should be a factor in determining access? There is no point in denying that it is happening, because the evidence is mounting. Instead of social gerrymandering, improving secondary education and exploring ways of engaging and monitoring young people to consider higher education should be pursued. Distorting entry qualifications by lowering standards for students from low-income and non-traditional families is patronising and smacks of the worst kind of social engineering. As the Prime Minister agreed, higher education should be available to the most talented and academically able students, irrespective of colour, creed, background or postcode area, or their parents' income and education.
All this is to be overseen by an access tsar. We do not know what criteria will be used, what the legal basis of such a post will be or to what extent the 1992 Act will protect institutions from the activities of an access tsar.
318
In an Answer to an Oral Question recently in this House, the Minister said that the tsar will have powers to levy fines on universities. What does that mean?
Under the proposals in the White Paper it appears that the application of a university that wishes to charge top-up fees will be judged not on the need to meet the costs of expensive courses, but on whether it is providing sufficient places for students from disadvantaged postcode areas or low income families. That puzzles me. Can the Minister clarify what criteria will be used to allow top-up fees to be charged" I very much agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, said about the different ways in which universities will react to the policy.
Funding for universities and support for students cannot be divorced from the 50 per cent target set by the Government. There are to be an additional 35,000 students each year until 2010, plus the thousands of additional lecturers who will be required to meet that expansion. What is the real-terms increase in unit funding per student expected to be by 2006? Where will the additional buildings and equipment come from? As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, the additional expenditure so far announced will be more than absorbed by this expansion programme.
Addressing pay and conditions in higher education properly will make serious inroads into the so-called extra funding. How much funding is being taken from the higher education budget to fund the University for Industry, access arrangements and any other activity outside university core funding? It would also be helpful to know how the considerable gap in funding for universities between the ending of the up-front fees paid by the students and the coming on stream of loan repayments will be made good. What guarantees will the Minister give the House that fee income will truly be additional money to the universities'? For the record, although the original tuition fees were paid directly to universities, their introduction did not result in a commensurate increase in overall funding. In fact, the unit funding per student remained static.
I am attracted to much of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and others, especially about the aim of more independence for universities. However, under the White Paper proposals, the prospect of a massive increase in post-university debt—apart from acting as a deterrent to many students—must be considered alongside higher national insurance, ever increasing property prices, higher council taxes, much higher pension contributions and congestion charges, all at a time when students are setting out on a career and perhaps even marriage. Therefore, a system of endowments and alumni-giving controlled by the universities must be developed.
It is still an irony that a Labour government introduced a system of student support that left those from the poorest families with the greatest level of debt. I remain of the view that, over the long term, the distortion of university access and the introduction of an access tzar will affect the standing of our universities. Thirty five years ago, a higher percentage

319
of students from state schools went to our universities than do now. Why? It was not because university admissions were rigged but because there were greater opportunities for bright children from poorer homes. Direct grants, grammar schools and selection on the grounds of academic ability were all part of the system. Such opportunities have almost disappeared. In fact, such is the Government's hatred of selection on the grounds of academic ability that they have banished it by law. That has been an act of political malice.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy mentioned the Scottish dimension. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what it was that the Scottish Parliament said in the discussions.
The way forward would be to replace the rungs in the ladder of opportunity for bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds; provide more choice post-16 by increasing the provision of high-quality vocational education; improve education in our schools; provide a fairer system of student support; to ask Ministers at the department to be more open-minded to the ideas expressed in our debates in this place on student funding; abandon the appointment of an access tsar; abolish the 50 per cent target; encourage universities to publish their admissions criteria; rule out social engineering in access procedures; and, finally, remove central control and bureaucracy and reduce ministerial and departmental interference in our institutions.
8.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for raising this important issue. I pay to tribute to her in the many guises in which I have had the good fortune to know her over the years. I keenly note that she was the only Member of your Lordships' House to mention the relevance of early years education. As the responsible Minister, I was particularly delighted by that. I was, however, a bit concerned that she described us as central planners; that is not traditionally a role in which I see myself.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this far-reaching debate. I shall endeavour to answer as many of the questions raised as possible within the allotted time. I say now, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has perhaps given me a new song to sing as I go into the department tomorrow. How well it will received by my colleagues, I do not know.
The Government believe that education must be a force for opportunity and social justice. We must ensure that the opportunities that higher education brings are available to all those who have the potential to benefit from them, regardless of their background. That is why, as noble Lords from all parties have said, it is important to focus on raising the aspirations of schools and young people, encouraging universities to work with schools and communities to encourage young people to take up higher education opportunities, and investing in initiatives to widen participation.
320
At the same time, we have the responsibility to ensure that our higher education institutions continue to deliver world-class teaching and research. To deliver that, we believe that we must make changes and improvements to the sector, including the way in which it is funded. We believe that the higher education White Paper sets out a fair balance of funding between the taxpayer, the higher education sector and students and their families. It also sets out the levels of funding provided by the taxpayer to the higher education sector for the next three years.
I agree wholeheartedly with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on the role of endowments within the sector. We shall ensure that the sector is less dependent on a single source of funding. We will be setting up a task force to encourage higher education institutions and potential donors to promote existing incentives for donation. The task force will include corporate donors and financial and fundraising experts in the public, private and voluntary sectors and in the higher education sector itself. We believe that that will enable us to take forward some of the very interesting ideas that were raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. I am pleased, too, that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, likes part, if not all, of our funding.
I deal immediately with the unit funding issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Blatch. I shall also give a couple of comparisons so that the points are very clear and on the record. For 2005–06, unit funding will be £5,390. That is an increase on the 2002–03 figure of £5,050 and on the 2000–01 figure of £4,980. Unit funding is moving in the right direction. I cannot give the noble Baroness the figure for 2006; as she will appreciate, it will be in the next spending review. When I have those figures, I shall of course bring them to the House.
I should like to focus for a moment or two on the arrangements for the funding of full-time and of part-time students so that we can be clear about them. We have a means-tested grant to cover the contribution of full-time students to tuition costs. More than 40 per cent of students receive a grant to cover the whole cost. As noble Lords will know, there is a loan to help with living costs—his year it is worth up to £4,700 per year; a grant to help to cover the costs of looking after children, such as the childcare grant which covers up to 85 per cent of the costs of formal childcare; and grants to cover the additional costs of taking a course for those with disabilities.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, as vice-chair of the Open University, takes a keen interest in creating opportunities and incentives for people to take up part-time study. I am proud to say that the Labour Government were the first to provide any financial support to part-time students, including those studying through the Open University. Part-time students on low incomes can be eligible for grants to meet tuition costs, loans to help with the cost of taking a higher education course, and financial support from hardship funds towards living costs.

321
However, we recognise that those funds are not always easy to access. For that reason, we set out in the White Paper our intention to introduce a new grant for full-time students from low-income families, worth up to £1,000; to simplify and improve the way in which we provide additional finance to both full-time and part-time students; and to provide guaranteed fee support to part-time students on low incomes, along with a new grant of £250 to meet the cost of books, travel and other course expenditure to replace the existing fee remission and loans system.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, raised the issue of the £10.000 threshold, and other matters which she felt were important. Since we gave that indication in the White Paper, we have had more up-to-date data which indicate that we may be able to raise the threshold within the 30 per cent of students to be supported. The revised data are currently being checked. I shall, of course, come your Lordships' House when I have further information, but I wanted to give that information now to the noble Baroness and to other noble Lords who are interested. I hope that I will be able to bring good news on that.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, that in order to help ease the immediate financial costs for students and parents from 2006 no student will have to pay fees up front. I believe—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, welcomed this—that that is a critical factor in ensuring that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are able to go to university. Students will, of course, pay back the money through the graduate contribution scheme, with repayments set to commence when a student begins to earn £15,000.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that I have made a note on my brief to be bolder. I take on board what he said. I believe that in setting out our proposals on tuition fees we have indeed gone some way towards being bolder. It was not easy to work out how best to configure the way in which we support our higher education sector. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. welcomed our proposal for higher education funding. I believe that it will constitute a significant contribution. But I also believe that it is a very necessary element. I say to my noble friend Lady Lockwood that we have to look at a combination of funding. We believe that although the bulk of funding will continue to be provided by government—it will reach almost £10 billion a year by 2005–06—it is important to have other funding sources and to recognise the contribution that those who benefit from universities should make.
We want to ensure that the change does not deter potential students from going to university. I believe that the deferred payment will make a substantial contribution to that aim. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Sewel, and other noble Lords referred to the devolved administrations. I cannot give the precise details of the relevant conversations as I do not have them. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was concerned that the hard work should go on. It has gone on and will continue. Discussions took place during the
322
deliberations on the White Paper and continue. At present there is no evidence of any buses crashing anywhere. We are mindful of the need to work closely with the devolved administrations to ensure that we have in place what devolution gives us; namely, differences in policies, but ways of working together to ensure that we are conscious of the effects of those policy differences. I assure noble Lords that that has occurred.
We do not believe that debt is a deterrent for the great majority of students.The Student Living Report 2003 reveals that students continue to find their time at university worth while. Nearly nine out of 10 students consider that the money they are spending is a good investment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that students now accept that working part-time is the norm. Indeed, it can have great advantages.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, were concerned about graduate repayments. I repeat that those earning less than £15,000 pay nothing. The latest figures I have seen—today—show that many graduates begin work on a salary of about £14,000. A graduate earning £18,000 would pay £270 per year, which is £22.50 per month. It is important to put the repayments in that context. It is not like any form of commercial repayment arrangement. That is an important point.
Noble Lords focused on student choice and the issue of widening participation. If we are to get the most from the pool of talent that we have, it is essential that the opportunities offered by higher education are available to all those with the potential to benefit from them. We shall encourage universities to offer more flexible routes into and through higher education to help those for whom a more traditional route would be impossible, as well as creating better benchmarks to help institutions to judge their progress, and reform the access premium.
We are helping to ensure that those opportunities are offered to all students through the unification of the programme now called the National Aim Higher Programme. It seeks to raise aspirations, to raise the attainment of young people, and to build better links between schools, universities and colleges.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that we have introduced a foundation degree designed to appeal to people of all ages who perhaps would not have considered entering higher education, by reducing the practical barriers to learning with delivery arrangements through work, through local further education colleges, and web-based learning. These courses are designed to appeal to people already in work and to provide specialist technical knowledge, employability skills and broader understanding. Noble Lords will remember that I mentioned in your Lordships' House that I launched the foundation degree for those involved in childcare and was delighted to see people involved in childcare coming forward to take that next step in their education.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made the important point that we need to ensure that for our young people there is a breadth of opportunity. We want to make

323
sure that by 2004 about a quarter of our young people enter a modern apprenticeship scheme. We now have a group led by the chief executive of Centrica who will ensure that our modern apprenticeships take account of the views of employers. We believe that that is extremely important.
We state specifically in the White Paper that we are not choosing between more plumbers and more graduates. As noble Lords have said on many occasions, we need both. Evidence, though, shows that education increases productivity and that higher education is most important for economic growth in developed countries. We believe that it is important that we offer the opportunity of higher education if we are to operate in a competitive world and to make sure that we offer those opportunities to all young people capable of taking them up. That should be within the context of recognising that skills gained in other ways are as appropriate for some young people as a university education is for others.
I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised the excellent contribution of Nicholas Barr. I read the summary of the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee, which is very interesting. Of course we are looking in terms of raising the cap, and at the context between raising fees and ensuring that we do not make courses so expensive that students can no longer apply or take part in them. Those are really important issues for the future and will be looked at by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for higher education in their further deliberations.
Every noble Lord who spoke rightly referred to the issue of access, and I want to spend some time trying to deal with the specific points raised. I recognise the commitment of universities and colleges to fair access for students from all backgrounds. We are certain that schools are committed to encouraging our students to aim higher and to go into higher education. However, 30 years ago, students from middle-class backgrounds were three times more likely to go to university than those from poorer backgrounds. The numbers going to university have more than trebled, but the gulf remains the same. At present, only 28 per cent of graduates come from disadvantaged backgrounds. We believe that there is work to do.
The new access regulator, who is a regulator and not a tsar, will ensure that universities that want to raise their fees make plans to safeguard and promote widening access through bursaries—those have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill—other financial support, and by direct work with schools and colleges to promote the aspiration to a university education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out that the access regulator could, as a last resort, withdraw the power of universities to charge those extra fees if they were not upholding their access agreement. I am well aware that she mentioned fines. In the next two or three weeks we will publish the paper setting out in more detail the proposals on how the access regulator
324
will work. I will ensure that the issue is covered fully, and that the noble Baroness has the detail of it. I say to all noble Lords, but to the noble Baroness in particular because she raised the subject, that I believe that my colleagues listen carefully to all issues raised by such eminent individuals in this House, who bring huge experience and knowledge to them.
The noble Lords, Lord Sutherland and Lord Oxburgh, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester talked about raising standards in schools. The "Excellence Challenge", which of course involves our schools, higher education institutions and FE colleges, is an important and complementary part of our commitment to do that. I agree that schools have an important part to play. We must make sure that our schools offer every young person the opportunity to reach their highest possible attainment. I accept that, but that is not the end of the story: it is important that students also get the opportunity to talk to universities, particularly those students for whom a university education is not part of their social or cultural background, so that they begin to understand it. All noble Lords would accept that that is very important.
I want to pick up on something that was said, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, about universities and the part that they are striving to play. I accept that, but we still have a gap. I shall take Oxford as an example without any criticism, because I know what good work it does. Some 53 per cent of entrants to Oxford are from the state sector, but the benchmark is 68 per cent. We need to work carefully to ensure that students are able, and want, to apply to Oxford, Cambridge and other universities. As I say, I have no criticism of the fantastic work that is going on within such universities, but I recognise that we all need to engage in that process. I am delighted at the work going on to achieve that.
A number of noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady Prashar, talked about the two-tier system on research. Not all universities want to focus on research. In the White Paper, we have set out the three areas that we think are of great importance. Noble Lords will know that they are research, teaching, and knowledge transfer. We need to create more opportunities for recognition and excellence in all three of those areas.
It is also true to say that 75 per cent of funding under the RAE from HEFCE goes to the top 25 institutions anyway, so we already have a concentration on research. That is why I am pleased that we now have the funds to enable us to focus on emerging research in non-research-led universities, if I might call them that.
Noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, talked about the opportunity for collaboration between universities, so that students get the experiences appropriately described by noble Lords in terms of research capacity. I argue that we can do that in more creative ways.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, discussed quotas and the amount of funding provided by HEFCE to institutions. She will know that in 2002 we removed

325
controls on the maximum number of students. Institutions can now bid for more funding under the additional student numbers scheme. Flexibility is there, but it may not be all that the noble Baroness wishes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, discussed poor students going only to poor universities. We want all students to go to the universities that best suit their needs and potential. That is why it is important that through access agreements we encourage the use of bursaries and other forms of financial support and ensure that best practice is spread to give opportunities to young people.
I have discussed the access regulator and the fact that we will come forward with details on that. We look forward to discussing it in your Lordships' House. I wholeheartedly agree with everyone—the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch, in particular—who said that admissions must be on the basis of merit. I state categorically that admissions are the responsibility of universities. I believe that that will be reflected in the views of the noble Baroness and others of the proposals that we will produce.
In conclusion, it is important that universities have the opportunity to select the candidates who will make the best success of their university careers. Universities of course look to A-levels but they also look to other measures, particularly those universities—many of them are represented here —that are oversubscribed. We are interested in ensuring that we spread the best practice of that basket of measures, if I may call it that, to ensure that we have students with both the greatest achievements and the greatest potential to go forward to university. The university sector has risen to that challenge and will continue to do so.
We have a higher education sector of which we should be truly proud. The Government are responsible for ensuring that it meets the long-term challenge to maintain and improve high standards, to expand and widen access, to strengthen links with business and to compete at an international level in today's global economy. Those are challenging objectives and I believe that the reforms that we have announced in terms of student funding and institutional funding will help us, with the education institutions, to make our ambitions a reality.
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the usual comprehensive way in which she answered so many of the points raised in this debate. As always, one will have to read an awful lot of what has been said because much information was presented. There is still some doubt, shall we say, about the access regulator but we look forward to reading those remarks.
I also thank in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch. Theirs is the responsibility from the Opposition Front Benches, and it can sometimes be "yet another day", so I extend particular thanks to them.
326
I also thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate and echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am particularly grateful that so many of my noble friends took part in this debate. I found it a fascinating two-and-a-half hours. I need not have worried about it being the third such debate in four months. Clearly, we could do with many more debates on the subject. I am sure that that will happen. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Airlines: Regulation
8.24p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bankrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the performance of the Civil Aviation Authority in regulating low-cost airlines.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the rapid growth of low-cost, no-frills budget airlines has been a phenomenon in Britain and Ireland over the past six or seven years. Low-cost airlines first became commonplace in the United States in the 1980s as a result of the liberalisation of the civil aviation market, and Europe followed in the mid-1990s.
The two most prominent and largest low-cost airlines are Ryanair, which is based mainly at Stansted, as well as Dublin, and easyJet, which is based at Luton. Ryanair has about 50 aircraft in scheduled flights but plans to buy 150 more within the next few years. EasyJet now seems to have about 60 aircraft but, like Ryanair, plans to buy 150 new aircraft.
These two airlines are highly competitive in the market, especially with each other. They are aggressive in their language and are not above knocking copy and black propaganda. Michael O'Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, and Stelios Haji-Ioannou, the boss of easyGroup, are happy to personalise these rivalries. For example, in a sharp exchange of correspondence in the Financial Times in June last year, Mr Haji-loannou was critical about Ryanair for using fully depreciated aircraft "about 23 years old", and, as he put it. on a,
"few landing strips in the middle of nowhere".
In reply, Mr O'Leary accused the chairman of easyGroup of "nonsense" and writing "whingeing letters". I hope that they have sufficient time to run their companies while swapping such rhetorical flourishes.
Both companies are also rich in publishing press releases, and it is hard to keep track of their bewildering claims. On 8th February, easyJet reported a surge in passenger numbers for January, and its shares rose to 225 pence. But, on 26th February—less than three weeks later—easyJet was warning about the need to cut fares to fill its aircraft, and its shares fell to 213 pence. I assume that Ryanair and easyJet are financially sound, but it is difficult to ascertain their underlying current performance.

327
A year ago, there were two other well regarded airlines—Go and Buzz. I had flown with both of them. But Go has gone, absorbed into easyJet, and Buzz has been bought by Ryanair, which announced this week that it was retaining only a limited number of routes and aircraft and sacking three-quarters of its Stansted staff. Given the fate of buzz, the passengers are being refunded, or so it seems, but the workforce, including the pilots, may still be in dispute.
Among other low-cost airlines, there is the newish subsidiary of the long-standing company, British Midland, whose ownership is 30 per cent Lufthansa and 20 per cent Scandinavian Airlines. The new low-cost company is called bmibaby and is based at the East Midlands airport and at Cardiff and Manchester. Other low-cost and small airlines have been launched, but some will be here today and gone tomorrow.
The characteristics of low-cost airlines, with variations, are usually as follows. First, and most obviously, they offer cheap fares—sometimes at rock-bottom prices—especially in the winter, and no discounts for children. Secondly, they offer no frills and, most plainly, no in-flight meals or additional services, and often no allocated seats, with queuing for a place. Then, booking is on-line or by credit card, with no ticket in advance and only a boarding card at the check-in. Low-cost airlines are often launched with a handful of second-hand aircraft. But established airlines are now buying new aircraft and settling for a single type in their fleet—a version of the Boeing 737.
I welcome the growth of low-cost airlines because traditional airlines have had their own way for far too long. That has widened the opportunity to travel for leisure, including for those of limited means. Passengers now often have a choice of airline or a flight from a regional airport. There is a wide range of destinations with a variety of fares from day to day and at different times of the day. I hope that the low-cost revolution is here to stay. My concern is mainly about consumer protection and safety.
Many years ago, in the late 1960s, I was Minister of Trade, looking after civil aviation at the Board of Trade. I endorsed the Edwards report into civil air transport of 1969 and I argued strongly within the department in favour of a civil aviation authority, which was turned into legislation by a successor government in 1972. I also read accident reports and followed the history of short-lived, sometimes buccaneering independent airlines which seemed to steer close to the wind.
That is the background of my Unstarred Question, which puts together the role of the Civil Aviation Authority and the low-cost revolution. If I am raising questions, mainly in an agnostic spirit, it is because there is no reference to low-cost airlines in the chairman's statement in the 2002 annual review, none in the report and accounts, and no reference either in what is described as "30 years of the CAA 1972–2002", a short history of the CAA, in the review.
328
The CAA review and the report list the board of directors, which includes a group director, consumer protection. There is a passing reference to low-cost airlines in the appropriate section. But consumer protection seems to be mainly concerned with tour operators and the travel industry, not directly with the public.
The review mentions,
"an airline's Voluntary Passenger Service Commitment, which sets a range of passenger service standards",
that has resulted from an initiative by the European Commission. The Department for Transport has asked the CAA to monitor compliance and the CAA gave a report at the beginning of the year 2002. The report was prepared by "a small team" and "research" consisted of,
"at least one visit to each airline's office to explain the requirements to obtain evidence of compliance".
It was a pretty thin, half-hearted attempt to push ahead the project. But in any case, none of the low-cost airlines was a formal signatory and there had been no "research" in relation to what was then Go. EasyJet volunteered to comply on most counts "in principle"—whatever that means.
The second report of compliance was published in November 2002. It was also disappointing. It conceded that the report was not complete because there was insufficient information about the airlines. Only nine UK carriers were included and none were low cost.
I hope that the Minister will say whether he is happy about the quality of the reports. More importantly, is he satisfied that the CAA is making serious progress on the passenger service commitments?
Ryanair and easyJet have declared their intention to resist European legislation that would require the payment of compensation when passengers suffer from delayed and cancelled flights. And according to Which? magazine, the idea of a charter of airline passengers has been described as "meaningless nonsense".
The Advertising Standards Authority, of which I was chairman for six years, has received justified complaints about Ryanair, easyJet and the late Go and Buzz. That includes misleading fares and destinations. The CAA's consumer protection group has had an interest in such advertising. In general, is the Department for Transport satisfied with the CAA's performance on consumer protection and content with its consumer protection terms of reference?
The CAA's annual report refers to safety as "the first priority", "the top priority" and the "primary objective"—and quite right too. It states that the United Kingdom has one of the best aviation safety records in the world. I am ready to endorse that—as, I am sure, is the Minister. However, it would be reassuring if the CAA was to state explicitly that low-cost airlines are not under unreasonable strains and pressures, given some disturbing anecdotal remarks.
Air crew are now often turned around within 20 minutes on an international flight. Some pilots are said to be flying to the limits of maximum hours. All

329
men and women—doctors, lawyers, engineers and architects—are aware of a bottom 5 per cent of their profession which has significant shortcomings, to put it delicately. I remember a fatal accident that arose from incompetence on the part of one member of an air crew who had squeezed through his examinations only on his fourth attempt.
It would be helpful if the CAA could confirm that the quality of flight and cabin crew is as high as ever, given the projected number required by low-cost airlines. Can the Minister explain how the CAA maintains its standards?
Months ago, I read Feedback, a bulletin published by a charity funded by the CAA for the purpose of aviation safety. One contributor wrote about a growing tendency,
"primarily with some of the low-cost airline operators, of flight crew reacting inappropriately to traffic control clearance".
I cite the rather clumsy language, but hope that the point is clear. That correspondent described what he called "overly-aggressive behaviour", adding
"I would not wish to give the impression that anarchy has broken out…However…in my judgment (it) is due in part to the aggressive commercial ethos that exists within some airline companies and which probably translates into extreme pressure on the flight deck".
I cannot say whether that is a minority or a representative view of the problem, but the CAA must be alert about such hazards. The human factor remains critical in aviation. If air crew are unsettled, tired or preoccupied about their jobs and security, they may be distracted from their professional task.
Finally. I turn to aircraft. I understand that low-cost airlines generally utilise their aircraft for up to 13 hours a day, compared with eight or nine hours for traditional airlines. Given that some second-hand, elderly aircraft will continue to be used, I assume that the CAA is monitoring risks and watching for any cutting of corners.
In the course of my remarks, I have inevitably referred to Ryanair and taken for granted that the CAA's writ runs over any airline based in the United Kingdom. However, given that Ryanair is an Irish airline, the CAA may have limited powers. Perhaps the Minister will explain the position and tell us whether there are any reciprocal arrangements with the Irish aviation authority.
I repeat: I greatly welcome the low-cost revolution of civil aviation, but I hope that the Minister can reassure the public and me that the Civil Aviation Authority is fully alert to any shortcomings in that important, fast-moving sector. He might encourage the Civil Aviation Authority to be more forthcoming about low-cost airlines in its next annual report and review.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the British Airline Pilots Association. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, who is an old friend of mine, on his choice of subject for this debate, which could hardly have been more timely.
330
I know that the noble Lord will forgive me if I focus entirely on the proposed takeover of Buzz by Ryanair. He mentioned other highly important matters, to which I hope the Minister will reply More importantly, I hope that what he has echoed will be important in practice.
The noble Lord declared an interest as a former Minister of Aviation—I am, too. Never in his or my time as Minister was there a problem of' this kind. It is most important that it is not ignored. It must be tackled, not only by the Government, but by all the agencies concerned with the consumer and airlines.
I have long been a believer in sensible debate about such issues and the role of the Civil Aviation Authority and other bodies concerned with airline regulation and the rights of the air-travelling public. We are talking about jobs and the future of airlines. We are addressing matters of profound importance to the Government, their aviation policy and how it impinges on European law. It involves the interests of the OFT and those likely to use the aircraft; namely, the consumers, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, pointed out.
So much depends on the relationship permitted to be forged between the British Airline Pilots Association and Ryanair, in particular, at this time. The auguries are not good. Although I am president of the British Airline Pilots Association, I point out that it is regarded by most airlines, the travelling public and Members of both Houses of Parliament as a responsible body. Only one person—the chief executive of Ryanair—has chosen otherwise.
I wish that I could be more optimistic. Unfortunately, the intransigence of Michael O'Leary has collided with this. He threatened staff, telling them to take the contract or he would close the airline down. He said:
"Hard times require hard messages. If the PR has caused some people to be upset, then tough. Such is life".
That is not the sort of language that ought to be used by a chief executive concerned about consumers and about his relationship with a body involved with aviation. It is not the language of a chief executive who has—or ought to have—a day-to-day relationship with the Government. To Mr O'Leary I say that life is not always like that.
Fortunately, the British Airline Pilots Association enjoys different and, for the most part, happier relations with other airlines, but Mr O'Leary prefers the language of duress. He has accompanied his threats by saying that he may yet walk away if his terms are not accepted, leaving all 600 employees of Buzz without jobs. He has actually threatened that. It defies the imagination, but that is what he said. It may be, as Jim McAuslan, the general secretary of BALPA, suggested, that Ryanair never had any intention of running Buzzaway and wanted to close Buzz down to get rid of the competition. The Office of Fair Trading will have to consider that matter.
When it comes to employment issues, should not the Civil Aviation Authority and the Office of Fair Trading look more widely at these than so far has been depicted? If there may be an infringement of competition law and of merger control provisions,

331
should not the wider public interest issues be regarded? Should not the possibility of a major infringement of European law be considered? All those matters are highly germane, and, with others, they must all be examined. If Mr O'Leary will not talk sensibly about all the issues, the union and others may have to try to compel him to do so.
So far, Mr O'Leary's tactics have been to menace and misrepresent. It may be true that Buzz is, as he says, losing £30 million a year, but is it not equally true that other relevant areas—for example, marketing—would now be assumed by Ryanair and would save the company about the same amount every year? Is it not true, therefore, that the company could survive without any change to the pilots' contracts? To Mr O'Leary, I say that there is a lot to talk about. Is he prepared to listen and come forward with some rational arguments? After all, we are talking about people's jobs, about the right to fly and about a host of important issues. There is plenty to talk about.
I want the new airline to be successful, but the BALPA pilots also must be able to enjoy their employment rights. I want them to have trade union recognition, as has been the case for many years. Those aims are by no means incompatible, and I hope that the CAA and the other bodies to which I have referred will shoulder their respective responsibilities, because a great deal is at stake.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Rodgers on the timing of his debate because this week the financial press has been full of stories about low-cost airlines taking over each other—or not, as the case may be.
I have been surprised at the success of low-cost airlines in achieving an extraordinarily large market share in a very short space of time. Last year over 40 per cent of domestic passengers flew with low-cost airlines, with over 30 per cent of passengers flying to continental Europe. Low-cost airlines have brought considerable benefits to consumers, the most obvious being that of expanding consumer choice. Indeed, the extent to which the low-cost airlines have been successful at creating markets which previously did not exist was brought home to me when returning late last year from a family holiday in Italy. We caught a late night flight from Ancona to Stansted. I expected the incoming flight from London to be largely empty. Instead, it was completely full. To achieve a full flight at the beginning of September into Ancona late on a Monday evening was a considerable marketing achievement. Of course that has been replicated with flights to many other destinations.
Another successful innovation from the low-cost airlines, one that has been grudgingly accepted by the traditional operators, has been their introduction of new technology, not least in ticketing arrangements. The purchase of tickets is now so much easier.
In his remarks my noble friend Lord Rodgers identified the two key risks faced by low-cost airlines, which are arguably more serious for them than for their
332
traditional rivals. The first, which possibly may be the lesser risk although it is extremely important, relates to safety. In 2002 a whole string of allegations were made about safety problems on both Ryanair and easyJet. The complaints were many and varied. It was argued that pilots were working excessive hours. A row erupted between the Irish Aviation Authority and Ryanair over the method of calculating pilot hours for the purposes of determining whether those hours were in fact excessive. Further arguments were fought over the ageing fleet; over whether pilots were breaking speed limits and becoming aggressive with air traffic controllers because they had to meet extremely tight timetables; and whether aircraft had been flying too low. The chief executive of easyjet became so worried about the stories concerning flight safety that last summer he wrote to all the national newspaper editors upbraiding them for their stories about the airline.
In terms of air crashes, the safety record of the low-cost airlines has been extremely good. However, in a sense there can be no smoke without fire—if that is not an inappropriate pun—in terms of safety. As my noble friend Lord Rodgers pointed out, genuine concerns have been expressed that corners may be cut when economic pressures are great. Here the CAA and its Irish equivalent need to be particularly vigilant.
The greater risk facing low-cost airlines and therefore the passengers flying with them is an economic one. As I mentioned earlier, the airlines have expanded very quickly and they are planning to grow even more.
I turn first to Ryanair. At one point last year, I heard Michael O'Leary self-confidently predicting that in a relatively short period of time it would have overtaken BA in terms of the size of its company. That is a kind of hubris coming from a relative newcomer to a sector, which would certainly get any shareholder extremely worried.
Secondly, as regards Ryanair, the Buzz purchase, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, brings with it a number of significant risks. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is worried about the situation faced by pilots and the possible heavy-handed negotiating tactics of Ryanair. My concern is slightly different. Buzz was losing 1 million euros per week. Whatever is done to cut its marketing costs, if Ryanair can turn around that kind of loss, certainly in the short term, it is doing extremely well. It is to be hoped that it has deep enough pockets to turn around a very significant weekly loss and bring Buzz back into profitability.
In order to fill its airlines at virtually any cost. Ryanair has announced recently that it is to make 1 million seats available from upwards of £10 per seat. Clearly, it will be suffering a marginal loss per passenger even though it is desperate to maintain the number of flights and fill the airline. Indeed, fares at Ryanair are some 8 per cent lower now than for an equivalent flight at an equivalent time last year.
As regards easyJet, many of the same features apply. It has firm or optional orders on a staggering 240 aircraft. It has recently acquired Go and yesterday

333
pulled out—at significant cost— of the purchase of Deutsche BA. It, too, has seen a fall in air fares of some 8–9 per cent over the previous year.
The situation facing those airlines, after a period of considerable growth, is one of tightness in terms of revenues and of desperate attempts to fill their seats. One of the almost certainly predictable consequences of the current international situation is that passenger volumes in the short term will fall, as they did after September 11th. Again, one hopes that those two airlines have the financial resources to deal with any such shortfall.
These potential problems of over-expansion are ones which the CAA cannot resolve adequately. Essentially, they are matters for the market. The point at which the CAA may become involved is if consumers find that the airlines are unable to maintain their obligations and compensation needs to be paid.
My question for the Minister, which is under the jurisdiction of the Government, relates to one element of the economics of the low-cost airlines—namely, the issue of air passenger duty. Obviously, air passenger duty is particularly significant for no-frills airlines because taxes constitute a higher proportion of their costs than they do to the carriers charging a higher fare per passenger. I know that the Minister will not tell me what the Chancellor will be announcing in the Budget, but I should be grateful if he would pass on to his right honourable friend in the Treasury the fact that, at this stage in the economic cycle, a rise in air passenger duty could be particularly damaging to the low-cost airlines.
8.59 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, low cost airlines are a success in this country. They represent approximately 41 per cent of domestic airline travel and 32 per cent of continental airline travel. I shall be brief, but not out of any disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. The questions that he asked are more for the Minister and of a more technical nature, rather than the policy of the airline industry. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for giving me an opportunity to ask the Minister three simple questions.
First, there have been concerns about safety, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Specifically, there have been concerns in the press about pilot hours. Are the Government satisfied that the CAA is doing all it can? Indeed, is the CAA satisfied with the safety of low-cost airlines.
Secondly, I want to ask about consumer protection. The Minister's colleague in another place, Mr Jamieson, announced that political agreement was reached at the European Transport Council in December last year,
on a proposal for a regulation establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delays of flights".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/03; col. 625W.]
334
I understand that a regulation, which will apply to all airlines operating within the European Union, will ensure a higher level of protection for passengers in cases of denied boarding, cancellation or delay. A ministerial letter detailing the outcome of the EU Transport Council was sent to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee on 10th December last year. Can the Minister tell us anything about those regulations and their date of introduction?
Finally, in the light of the current crisis in the Middle East, which will affect airlines, is the Minister aware of airlines being unable to obtain insurance cover? Have they made representations to the Government? If so, will the Government do what they did in similar circumstances two years ago; that is, arrange for additional cover so that airlines can continue to fly?
9.1 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing the subject. Clearly, it touches the personal experience of all of us. When the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was returning from Ancona and was surprised that the incoming flight was full, I was probably on one of them. My wife and son went to Ancona for £2.99, plus taxes, each way. That was rather good value.
I do not want to concentrate entirely on the cost. In economic terms, we should not be talking about low-cost airlines but about no-frills airlines. Not only is the cost different from the mainstream airlines, but the product is different. It is not just a matter of meals, free drinks and so forth; the no-frills airlines have discovered that some things which in other airlines are offered as a basis, people are willing to forgo for the sake of lower prices. That applies to meals, drinks, methods of ticketing, pre-booked individual seats and so forth. That is a marketing change; the airlines are selling a different product.
I believe that we should welcome such airlines. Anyone who opens up a new market in this way is performing a service for consumers. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, it happened because of the introduction of the single aviation market in Europe in the early 1990s and, as he and other noble Lords have said, it is now hugely significant. More than one-quarter of the number of international passengers from the United Kingdom are on the no-frills airlines. Those airlines have opened up new routes from different places in Britain, which is most important. but also to different destinations in many parts of Europe. They have genuinely created a new market.
From that, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, went on to remark on the lack of reference to no-frills airlines in the CAA annual report and review. There is a good reason for that: the CAA—I shall deal with the Irish Aviation Authority later—does not recognise a difference between no-frills airlines and others. It is enormously important that it does not distinguish on the basis of cost. That is important from the point: of view of safety, from the point of view of the responsibility of the consumer protection group for

335
commercial fitness and from the point of view of the responsibility of the group for the protection of consumers' interests.
As to safety, based on the air navigation order—the most recent one of 2000—the CAA safety regulation group issues air operator certificates to all airlines that fly from this country. There is no distinction between no-frills airlines and any other airline. The same audits and the same flight inspections are carried out. Until I came to look at this subject, I did not realise that CAA pilots fly with all of these airlines as main pilots, copilots and in the jump seat to observe compliance. It is the same for Ryanair. The Irish aviation authority adopts the same practice. Clearly that is an important protection.
Allegations and accusations have been made which have been referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Rodgers. It is alleged that something is going wrong; that corners are being cut; that pilots have been disobeying air traffic control instructions. I am not saying that the noble Lords are making those allegations but they are reporting that they have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, went so far as to say that there is no smoke without fire. He would not like that being said about financial institutions in the City of London.
All of these allegations have been investigated by the Civil Aviation Authority and found to be unjustified. For example, every time allegations about noncompliance with proper flight schedules have been investigated, the schedules have been found to be in accordance with European standards.
Any airline—whether high-cost or low-cost—cutting safety corners would run the risk of being charged with collective manslaughter. It would be commercial suicide to cut corners on safety.
Turning to the issue of commercial fitness, people ask why it was that Buzz continued to trade although it was losing 1 million euros a week. It was not criticised by the CAA consumer protection group for doing so because it had behind it a much larger organization—KLM—and, unless there is evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that the parent company will take responsibility for it.
The consumer protection group concerns itself with commercial fitness; with the financial resources available; with the corporate structure; and with the probity of airline management. Again, no distinction is made between no-frills airlines and other airlines.
The decision of Ryanair to buy Buzz and the decision of Buzz to allow itself to be bought by Ryanair are commercial considerations. They cannot be considerations for the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand that Buzz is now being reconstituted as Buzzaway and that it will be applying for an operator licence and an operator certificate. That will of course be under regulatory control.
Before I leave Buzz and Ryanair, I must refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He referred with some feeling to the bad employment relations between Mr. O'Leary and the pilots and
336
presumably, other employees of Buzz and Ryanair. Again, these are not regulatory issues, but matters of employment relations. They are not matters in which the Government can intervene on an individual basis.
In so far as competition is concerned, that, of course, is a matter for Her Majesty's Government. The Office of Fair Trading has called for comments from interested parties. The Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority have responded to that call. The OFT mergers panel will decide whether there are competition concerns and whether the matter should be referred to the Competition Commission. These are proper considerations of the Government and those responsibilities are being taken seriously.
I understand the dismay at the redundancies, especially the dismay of those who expected to take particular flights from particular places in the United Kingdom to particular places in Europe and found that they no longer existed. These are commercial considerations, however, rather than matters of regulation.
The consumer protection group of the CAA runs ATOL. It is a historic fact that under the EC package travel directive, ATOL applies only to bookings made on packages. If, for example, bookings are made for car hire and hotels on the Internet by somebody following a link between the airline and the car hire company, that does not count as a package and cannot be covered by ATOL. There is no prospect of the protection provided by ATOL being extended. That would have to be done by insurance.
I want to reinforce what I said about Ryanair. It is entirely properly regulated by the Irish Aviation Authority because its registered office and its business management—and, therefore, its principal place of business—is in Dublin, although it operates largely from Stansted. Ireland and the United Kingdom are both signatories to the Chicago convention and are both subject to the ICAO, which carried out a thorough audit of the Irish Aviation Authority in 2001 and awarded it a clean bill of health. I can therefore give the assurance that all the protections that exist for passengers of UK airlines from the Civil Aviation Authority also exist for passengers on Irish airlines under the Irish aviation authority. They work to the same European standards as we do.
I was asked about whether air passenger duty is damaging for low-cost airlines. I do not think that I can seriously be expected to comment on air passenger duty in the weeks running up to the Budget—or on any decisions that the Chancellor might make.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked about the compliance reports on the voluntary commitment to airline service standards. They are carried out on a relatively voluntary basis because they are about voluntary commitments. However, the Government are satisfied that the CAA reports covered all the relevant facts and were a fair reflection of the progress made by the airlines.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked about two particular matters. The first was denied boarding compensation. As he said, the proposal to improve

337
compensation was agreed at the Transport Council in December. The next step is for the proposal to be returned to the European Parliament for second reading. It is unlikely to become law before the end of the year, but when it does we shall have to transpose it into national law, including designating an enforcement body.
The noble Viscount also asked about terrorism insurance. As he knows, the market for commercial war risk insurance has been revived after the
338
withdrawal of cover following September 11th There is no clear evidence on whether the conflict in Iraq will affect that, but the Government are monitoring the position daily.
I hope that I have dealt with the issues that were raised in this short but valuable debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Data Sharing
  Data Sharing
  Citizens of Iraq Resident in UK
  Citizens of Iraq Resident in UK
  Asylum Appeals: Home Office Representation
  Asylum Appeals: Home Office Representation
  Home Office Responses to Correspondence from the General Public
  Home Office Responses to Correspondence from the General Public
  Mr Colin Skellet
  Mr Colin Skellet
  Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plans
  Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plans
  Halon Fire Extinguishers
  Halon Fire Extinguishers
  Food Supplements Directive: Production of Dossiers
  Food Supplements Directive: Production of Dossiers
  Events held in Hyde Park
  Events held in Hyde Park
  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Clinical Negligence Claims
  Clinical Negligence Claims
  Northern Ireland: Protestant and Roman Catholic Employment
  Northern Ireland: Protestant and Roman Catholic Employment
  Northern Ireland: Electoral Identity Cards
  Northern Ireland: Electoral Identity Cards
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem
  Mersey Street, East Belfast: Proposed Development
  Mersey Street, East Belfast: Proposed Development
  Northern Ireland Government Departments: Letterheads
  Northern Ireland Government Departments: Letterheads
  Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860
  Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860