Sitting of 1 May 2003

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

    Trade Liberalisation
    Mr. Nick Gibb: If she will make a statement on the latest developments in the Doha round of talks on trade liberalisation. [110624]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Since we launched the Doha development round in November 2001, progress has not been as fast as it should have been. In particular, we still have to conclude an agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights and access to medicines, and far more progress needs to be made on agriculture.
    In other areas, however, progress has been more encouraging. The European Union submitted its general agreement on trade in services offer to liberalise trade in services earlier this week, and detailed negotiations are continuing on non-agricultural market access in the hope of reaching an agreement on the scope of negotiations by the end of May.
    Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that honest answer. Does she agree that the Stuart Harbison Doha round proposals to phase out export subsidies would bring worldwide gains of about $100 billion a year, which would be especially helpful for third world countries? Was she therefore surprised and concerned that the French Minister. Herve Gaymard, said in a speech last month that he is
    "profoundly opposed to such a course of action and … channelling all … efforts into … making this fail"?
    Will she assure us that she will resist any attempt by the French to scupper such an important humanitarian proposal for trade liberalisation?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The gains to the developing world and to the world as whole—including the developed world—from a successful trade round will be enormous at this time of economic downturn. It is important to succeed in the round and to demonstrate that we have made progress by the time of the mid-term ministerial in Cancun in
    404
    September. The hon. Gentleman will also be interested by President Chirac's recent proposals on preferential treatment for countries in sub-Saharan Africa. We welcome the fact that his statement recognised the enormous damage caused to farmers in developing countries by export subsidies on agricultural products.
    I hope that the French Government will support the process of reforming the common agricultural policy because that will be essential if we are to make a better proposal in the Doha round.
    John Cryer: Where is the evidence that liberalisation and privatisation benefits third world countries? Surely the examples of Rwanda and Tanzania a few years ago and the recent failed attempt to privatise water in the third world tell us something about the sins of over-enthusiastic neo-liberalism.
    Ms Hewitt: Nothing in World Trade Organisation rules or the general agreement on trade in services requires either developing or developed countries to privatise any of their public services, including water. Indeed, the GATS offer that the EU has just published explicitly excludes our public services and public utilities. Attempts to privatise water in developing countries had nothing whatsoever to do with GATS or the WTO.
    Although I agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely important to get the phasing of market opening in developing countries right and to accompany that with appropriate measures for governance and effective regulation, we only have to compare the experience of African countries with that of many countries in south-east Asia over the past 30 years to appreciate how trade in a more liberal world economy that can be made fair as well as free benefits poor people in poor countries.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that what would have been difficult negotiations will be made more difficult by the rifts between the United States and some countries in western Europe? Does she agree that the best position for a free-trading country such as the United Kingdom to adopt is to be even-handed in criticising and condemning both the totally unacceptable protectionist interests in Europe that have prevented the EU from making a meaningful offer on agriculture and, equally, the aggressive unilateralism of the US that is manifested in its illegal action on steel and its continued refusal to put the developing world's wider interests in medical technology before the interests of its pharmaceutical companies?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman may remember that when the United States imposed tariffs last year on steel imports, including those from the United Kingdom, I condemned them roundly in the House and outside it. The steel tariffs are clearly unlawful under World Trade Organisation rules and I hope very much that the American Administration—I have said this to them privately—will not appeal against the ruling that found the tariffs contrary to WTO rules but will instead remove them at the earliest opportunity.

    405
    If I may, I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my recent speech in Brussels setting out precisely the Government's views on the need to create a framework of rules for trade that is fair as well as free and tackling the highly damaging protectionism in Europe, especially in relation to agriculture, and in the United States, where it has arisen in relation to steel.
    Linda Perham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that progress on the Doha round depends on the trade rules, in particular the special and differential treatment rule and the multilateral rules framework. and that that will assist investment and competition? We cannot leave it all up to negotiations at Cancun. We must assist developing countries or we will lose the opportunity that we now have.
    Ms Hewitt: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the things that we have discussed in great detail with the developing countries is the issue of special and differential treatment to ensure that the new round reflects the different stages of development that different countries have reached. The House will recognise that if we can make the necessary progress in the Doha negotiations, we will not only give a much needed boost to the world economy, but hold out hope to developing countries, which more than anything else want to earn and trade their way out of poverty rather than being trapped in dependence on aid.

    Registration Officers
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If she will make a statement on the employment rights of registration officers.[110626]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Government agree that all workers should have protection.
    Dr. Iddon: May I first declare an interest, as the honorary patron of the Society of Registration Officers in England and Wales?
    Today is the sixth anniversary of the Labour Government. For most of that time, I have dealt with six different Ministers, four at the Treasury and two at the Department of Trade and Industry, attempting to win right of access to employment tribunals for registration officers. Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 provides that that can be done by order. The registration service is about to undergo a major reorganisation and registration officers are likely to become local authority employees. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have the measure in place before that happens? Has he any news that I can give to registration officers at their annual conference in Wales on 14 May?
    Nigel Griffiths: The Government are studying more than 400 responses to the consultation document, considering how best to proceed, and setting deadlines. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear last month that all new employment legislation must be
    406
    implemented by 6 April or 1 October. We will work with the Office for National Statistics so that those deadlines can be adhered to.
    Mr. David Watts: Does the Minister agree that although tremendous progress has been made in improving employment rights for British workers, it is still a national scandal that many millions of them will take this bank holiday Monday off without pay? Does he believe that employment rights need to be improved to ensure that all British workers can enjoy the same—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very wide of the question.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Richard Page: What the total sums of manufacturing inward investment were in each year since 1999.[110627]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The total stock of manufacturing inward investment in the three years of 1999 to 2002 was £63.3 billion, £69.7 billion and £92 billion.
    Mr. Page: I thank the Secretary of State for that. Is she not concerned that the net figures show that we are losing out and that foreign investment into this country is not going ahead? Is she not also concerned that, at the same time, companies such as Dyson, Royal Doulton, Black and Decker and even Corus are downsizing, closing down or escaping abroad? Is she not worried that all that contributes to the fact that more than 500,000 people have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry in this country? What representations is she making to the Chancellor to improve the lot of manufacturing in the United Kingdom?
    Ms Hewitt: Every job loss and every decision by a company to reduce its employment or to relocate outside the UK is of course a matter for great regret. However, the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that the latest UN report on world investment confirms that the UK is the No. 1 destination for foreign direct investment in Europe. That investment is particularly important in manufacturing, and I am delighted to say that at the end of 2002 foreign direct investment in the UK was significantly higher than a year before.
    One factor in location and investment decisions is the fact that the UK is outside the single currency. The hon. Gentleman may not welcome my saying this, but the impact of that on investment, jobs and trade is one of the issues that we will take into account in making our decision on membership of the euro.
    Lawrie Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking and congratulating the Canadian food manufacturer, McCain, which has invested heavily to make Scarborough its European base and gone on to great success? It has also been involved in innovation and development, proving not only that it richly deserves its recent Queen's award for industry but that it is a flagship

    407
    company, which is telling other companies in north America just how important it is to invest in places in Britain such as Scarborough and Whitby.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am delighted to take this opportunity to congratulate the company and all those who are helping to make Scarborough an excellent location for inward investment. That underlines the fact that under the Chancellor's stewardship the UK remains one of the best places in the world in which to set up and grow a business. It is also one of the most attractive countries in the world, second only to the United States, for foreign direct investment.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State accept that her final comment to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) rather spoiled what had hitherto been a reasonable answer? Is she not aware that the high level of bureaucracy and over-regulation and the high social costs that are imposed on manufacturing, particularly through the European Union, are having a direct impact on that industry, and that many jobs are moving away from Europe and the UK for that reason? Is not the right hon. Lady somewhat concerned that our manufacturing base, for which investment is clearly very important, is shrinking because of over-regulation, high taxation and heavy on-costs, many of which are imposed because of the EU?
    Ms Hewitt: I am extremely concerned to ensure that this country has a strong, successful future in high-technology, high value-added manufacturing. That is why one of the first things that I did as Secretary of State was to bring together industrial leaders and trade unionists to help us to put in place the first manufacturing strategy for the UK for 30 years. As a direct result, we have established throughout all the English regions a highly successful manufacturing advisory service, which is already helping small and medium-sized manufacturers to improve their productivity and profitability. Although manufacturing jobs continue to be lost, not only in this country but in every other industrialised country, we are also growing new manufacturing industries, particularly in biosciences, which will help to create good jobs.
    I also draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that every international benchmarking survey shows that our business environment is one of the best in the world, and we will continue to improve the regulatory environment to keep it that way.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: What effect does the Secretary of State think that higher national insurance contributions, the climate change levy, the pensions tax and the provisions of the Employment Act 2002, which came into effect last month, will have on inward investment? Will she confirm that six years to the day since Labour was elected, the Government have produced the worst trade deficit since records began in 1697, the second worst fall in business investment since records began in 1966, a halving of the productivity growth rate achieved under the Conservative Government, the worst strike record for over a decade,
    408
    and the destruction of more than 2,000 manufacturing jobs every day since this Prime Minister moved into 10 Downing street?
    Ms Hewitt: I know that the increase in national insurance contributions will help to secure the huge improvements in the national health service that everybody in our country, including employers, wants. I know that the climate change levy and the climate change agreements are already delivering measurable improvements in energy efficiency throughout manufacturing, thereby helping to reduce costs. I know also that the new regulations on family-friendly working that we introduced last month will give employers the benefit of access to a more flexible and highly skilled work force.
    I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman chooses to talk down the British economy and British manufacturing as he has done today. As he well knows, thanks to the decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor six years ago, ours is one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world; and our manufacturing companies, despite the very tough global conditions they face, have succeeded in keeping up and, indeed, increasing the exports they send to the rest of the world. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate them on that.

    Regulatory Impact Assessments
    Mr. Philip Hammond: What procedures she has in place to audit regulatory impact assessments after implementation of (a) legislation and (b) regulations.[110633]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The accuracy of RIAs is currently being considered by the National Audit Office, with the Government's full support. If the hon. Gentleman has an approach that would further improve the assessment without increasing the bureaucracy, the House would be delighted to hear it.
    Mr. Hammond: Given that the Government have imposed £20 billion worth of additional regulatory costs on business since they entered office, I hope that the Minister agrees that it is essential that the costs to business of any additional regulations or legislation be accurately assessed. The fact is that business confidence in the current system of RIAs is, rightly or wrongly, low. Does he agree that to increase business confidence in the current system and to improve the quality of policy making, there should be a system of comprehensive post-implementation audit of RIAs, to determine how accurate they are?
    Nigel Griffiths: The facts do not bear out the hon. Gentleman's statement. He should tell that to the 373,000 businesses that started up last year or the 1.7 million businesses that have started up in the past six years, with the best survival rates for a decade. In referring to the £20 billion figure, he contradicts his own Front Benchers, because that figure includes the cost of the minimum wage, which they now support, and the cost of paid holidays and paid pensions, which people should not have had to wait until the 21st century to get.

    409
    The facts are plain: we have a robust method of assessing RIAs. What he suggests is a bureaucratic and burdensome further appraisal of RIAs, which we reject.
    Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend will know that the Public Accounts Committee has considered this question. Does he accept that any RIA should take into account the positive impact on profit of measures such as the working families tax credit, which reduces the real cost of wages to business, along with form filling, and legislation that gives £10,000 tax-free profit to partnerships that become incorporated? Does he accept that we should examine the impact of legislation on profit and growth in the round, not simply focus on a bit of red tape?
    Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right. It is a vote of confidence in the handling of the economy that so many small and medium-sized enterprises—1.7 million—have started up in this country in the past six years, and so many large companies have expanded, as Honda did when it opened a second plant in Swindon in 2000–01. It is recognised across the economy that the handling of our economic affairs by the Government, the Department of Trade and Industry, and the current Secretary of State in particular, is second to none.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the burden of regulation, whatever the intrinsic merits of some of that regulation, tends to be disproportionately large upon small and medium-sized enterprises, will the Minister undertake, as I previously urged the Secretary of State to undertake, a review of the merits of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996 in the United States, for the simple and compelling reason that that country has a vastly superior record to any other in the generation of new private sector employment?
    Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has looked closely at the United States in the respect that he requests. No one in the House would disagree with him when he asks that regulations and their impact be considered proportionately. I, as the Minister with responsibility for small businesses, accept that while larger companies have lawyers and accountants who can examine regulations in detail, smaller companies cannot afford them. I would rather the larger companies employed people who invented and developed products, not lawyers.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: What further action she is taking to communicate to Ofgem the policy of her Department on renewable energy; and if she will make a statement.[110635]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My ministerial colleagues and I, and my officials, have regular meetings with Ofgem to discuss a range of issues.
    410
    Ofgem has committed itself to producing regulatory impact assessments, including environmental impact assessments for all significant new policies, and following the White Paper on energy policy, we are revising the statutory guidance that we give Ofgem on both social and environmental issues.
    Mr. Thomas: I welcome that answer. Given that the early days of the new electricity trading arrangements, which were introduced by Ofgem, were characterised by serious problems, especially for smaller electricity developers such as those in the renewables and combined heat and power industry, will my right hon. Friend make it a priority for the new chair and chief executive of Ofgem that they seek to understand the needs of the renewables industry, and that they make accelerating the modernisation of the grid and sorting out some of the problems facing the CHP industry key priorities?
    Ms Hewitt: Yes, I have already made precisely those points to Ofgem, and they will be reinforced in the new guidance to which I have referred. In addition to the work of the regulator, the renewables obligation, which by 2010 will be worth about £1 billion a year to the industry, and the new carbon emissions trading scheme, which we will bring into effect in about 2006, will both help to accelerate the development of the renewables industry that we need to deliver sustainable energy to domestic and business consumers in Britain.
    Richard Ottaway: One of the bolder claims set out in the energy White Paper was the stated ambition to achieve 20 per cent. of Britain's electricity sources from renewable energy by the year 2020, though it was not clear whether that was a commitment, a target or an aspiration. However, in recent weeks the Minister for Energy and Construction has indicated that if the Government do not look as though they are on target to achieve this, whatever it is, the situation will have to be reviewed. On a scale of nought to 10, how confident is the right hon. Lady that she can achieve this aspiration?
    Ms Hewitt: I made it clear when I published the White Paper, and in a statement to the House, that I believe that our intentions to achieve both our climate change objectives and our energy efficiency objectives are achievable, by a massive increase in energy efficiency throughout the economy and by a substantial increase in renewable energy. There is no doubt that it will be tough. That is why we are putting in place not only the renewables obligation but the new carbon emissions trading system, which will be part of the Europe-wide trading system and hugely important in securing these goals. I believe that we can do it. I do not propose to start giving odds on that, and of course we shall keep the situation under review to ascertain whether the policies that we are putting in place are working or whether they need strengthening or changing.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: I agree that it s important for Ofgem to play a role and for us to continue to develop our renewable energy sources. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is

    411
    important also to deliver the new generation of clean coal technology, which can play a significant role in helping us to meet our Kyoto targets, and also provide many new jobs in constituencies such as Doncaster, North?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why we are supporting the cleaner coal technology programme, which is worth £25 million over three years. That will help us both to reduce carbon emissions and to ensure that there is a future for the excellent British coal industry.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Just precisely how does one communicate an aspiration as policy? Is not the truth that the right hon. Lady's renewables aspiration is unachievable? She has just terminated the future for nuclear electricity and she expects the end of coal, leaving just natural gas, thus ushering in a new dash for gas as the energy Minister rushes from Norway to Russia, Algeria, Iran and Angola to try to secure our future energy supply. No wonder he is not here—he must be dealing with the emergency that now exists over our future single source of energy, thanks to her having an aspiration instead of a policy.
    Ms Hewitt: I am not sure quite what the hon. Gentleman's question is. It is a great pity that he mocks the very real policy challenge facing our country as we shift from being an exporter of energy to an importer of energy which means, as we said in the White Paper, that energy policy will become an increasingly important part of our foreign policy. We must ensure both that we have the right infrastructure and the regulatory climate to get the necessary security of supply for gas from different parts of the world such as we have enjoyed for oil. However, as I have just said in response to an earlier question, by stepping up substantially our efforts on energy efficiency and securing a much larger share of our electricity from renewables, we will indeed be able to achieve both security of supply and our climate change targets.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the environmental impact assessments to which she has referred will take into account whether or not wind farms are to be sited in areas of outstanding natural beauty? Will she also look at the concern of a number of people that the location of wind farms close to rivers and the seaside can harm the ecosystem? In particular, can she get her officials to look at the proposed wind farm in County Londonderry, which has united elected representatives there and in County Donegal who are concerned about the impact on the area's fragile and precious ecosystem and salmon stocks?
    Ms Hewitt: I am not aware of the particular application in County Londonderry, but of course I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction looks at that. However, the issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) referred are already taken into account when considering an application for wind farms or, indeed, other developments. I would just tell him, as I have told environmental organisations, that people
    412
    cannot on the one hand say that they want more renewable energy and, on the other, campaign against every specific proposal for an increase in renewable energy in different parts of the country.

    Trade Balance (EU)
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What the balance of trade with the European Union was in (a) the latest 12 months for which figures are available and (b) the equivalent period 10 years previously. [110636]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): In 1992, the United Kingdom's trade in goods and services with the European Union was worth £163 billion. The deficit then of £5.4 billion was worth just over 3 per cent. of the UK's total trade. In 2002, our trade with the European Union was worth nearly £300 billion. The deficit of just under £14 billion was worth 4.7 per cent. of the UK's total trade.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister not genuinely worried about her balance of trade figures? The adverse balance of 2002 was the worst ever, particularly as it was recorded at a time when we had a positive balance with many parts of the world. As our trade with Europe used to be positive in certain years before we joined the EEC, could the right hon. Lady try to conduct an inquiry to find out what exactly has gone wrong? In particular—and I mean this very sincerely—could she try and find out whether the reason why we cannot sell as many goods to Europe is the misery and unemployment associated with membership of the single currency?
    Ms Hewitt: I know that the hon. Gentleman gets very excited about matters European, but I point out to him that the increase in the trade deficit over the past year or so is a result of the fact that we in Britain have enjoyed and are enjoying relatively good GDP growth. We are continuing to grow, whereas demand in the major continental economies has been disappointing.
    I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that more than half our trade is with the European Union. The proportion has steadily increased over the years since we joined the Common Market, and is now about three times as much as the trade that we enjoy with the United States.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for business in regions such as the north-east, which rely on EU countries for 78 per cent. of their exports, the nightmarish policies advocated by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) would be disastrous?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. If we were to pull out of the European Union and join the North American Free Trade Agreement, as some of the wilder Eurosceptics propose, it would be disastrous for jobs, investment and trade, and it would hit hard not only my hon. Friend's constituents but all our constituents.

    Post Office Card Account
    Tom Brake: What assessment her Department has made of the impact on the profitability of the Post Office of the current level of take-up of the Post Office card account. [110638]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): The Department has made no such an assessment. The Post Office card account is one element of the Post Office's strategy to restore the network of post offices to profitability. The strategy requires the Post Office to develop new, higher value activities such as banking and other financial services, which is made possible by the Government's investment in technology in every post office in the country.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his response and encourage him to undertake such research. Does he agree that a seven-stage application process for a Post Office card account acts as a deterrent, as does the lack of information about the account? That will lead to lower take-up, which will affect the profitability of the Post Office and post offices, and could lead to further closures, such as the threatened closure of Westmead road post office in my constituency.
    Mr. Timms: Many people are applying for Post Office card accounts. I do not agree about the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman believes exist. As we take advantage of the implementation of universal banking, which went live on 1 April, as planned—I recall Opposition Front Benchers expressing some scepticism about that, but it was delivered on time—people will be able to continue to collect their benefits in cash at the post office, as we always promised, through a bank account or through the Post Office card account.
    The key for the Post Office is that universal banking services will allow post offices to offer services to a new generation of customers. Sub-postmasters in the hon. Gentleman's constituency should consider the new opportunities that universal banking offers them. For example, since last week, every Barclays bank current account holder can obtain cash at any post office in the country, using their existing bank card, so 10 million Barclays current account holders have a new and compelling reason to go into their local post office. The post office will, of course, receive a payment for every such transaction, and once customers are in the post office, they will buy other things there. That is the way forward for post offices in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Other banks will have a similar arrangement, and what the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has got the message.
    Mr. David Drew: I accept what my hon. Friend says as he waxes lyrical. We must rebuild the network, but the biggest single problem is the relationship between the Department for Work and Pensions and sub-post offices. It is difficult to pretend that it is not off-putting if people have to go through the Department for Work and Pensions to get to the sub-post office. There is another bizarre twist. We know that, under the network reinvention programme, there must
    414
    be some closures, but in my area we seem to be saving rural post offices, whereas those in the more urban areas are being sacrificed. That is unacceptable. People are worried about whether they will have access to the Post Office card account. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
    Mr. Timms: I gather that, so far, nearly 100,000 people have requested a Post Office card account. There is a difference between rural and urban areas. Quite a few urban areas have 15 or more post offices within a one-mile radius, and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, there is no longer the business to sustain such a dense network. However, 3.5 million people in the UK do not have a bank account, many of whom would be better off with one, and the process of changing to benefit payment through automated credit transfer gives each of those people the chance to consider whether they would like to open a bank account. That is the purpose of the arrangements that we have put in place, and for that reason there is merit in them.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: May I relay to the Minister the very real anger of people in Watlington in south Oxfordshire who, like many others, face the closure of their post office? A problem that has been raised with me by the manager there is that housebound pensioners do not find it easy to depute another person to pick up their pension or any other benefit for them, which used to be possible with the old pension book system. What can the Minister do to address that problem and bring people back to the post offices to do their shopping so that post offices can continue to play a part in the life of the village?
    Mr. Timms: We have ensured that those who are housebound can receive a second card with a separate PIN that will be available for use by a nominee. We would be concerned if large numbers of different people were obtaining the money, as that would be a rather insecure arrangement. One of the benefits of the changes that we have made is that the new arrangements will be much more secure than the old ones were.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Minister aware of the line that the Post Office takes on these matters? I have been in touch with the Post Office in an attempt to save Hilltop post office in Dronfield and, while it says that it will note and carefully consider the points that I have made, given the contents of its letter I am not hopeful. It says that
    "the introduction of Direct Payment options … undoubtedly, means fewer customers using our network of Post Office branches".
    That is one of the arguments used for closures. I can send the Post Office the information that the Minister has just given about the wonders of Barclays bank accounts, which might help us save post offices in future, but would it not be of assistance if the Post Office card

    415
    could be obtained in a sensible and reasonable way by simply ticking a box in the same way that one can obtain a bank account?
    Mr. Timms: We have put in place arrangements with Postwatch and provided substantial funding so that it can manage the consultation process. I encourage my hon. Friend and others who might be concerned about particular post office closures to raise their concerns with Postwatch.
    There are many advantages in having a bank account that are not available through a Post Office card account, which is why we want people to take the opportunity of this change to consider whether they would be better off with a bank account, which would give them access to discounts on utility bills and so on. Many people, as we are seeing, are deciding that they want a Post Office card account, and no impediment will be placed in their way, but this is an opportunity for others to consider whether a bank account would help them.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Is not the truth of the matter that the Government do not want people to continue drawing pensions and other social security benefits in cash at post offices? How else can the Minister explain the constant denigration of the Post Office card account and the obstacles that are put in the way of people who wish to open one? He has been at it again today from the Dispatch Box. He is promoting Barclays bank and commercial bank accounts and saying that the Post Office card account is the second-rate option. Does he understand that that policy will make life difficult for thousands of elderly and vulnerable people and that it will threaten the survival of post offices throughout the country whose existence is often a lifeline for the communities that they serve?
    Mr. Timms: I am disappointed; I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to congratulate the Post Office on the successful implementation of universal banking on time, contrary to the fears that he expressed during Question Time a few weeks ago. I do not agree with his allegations. The Post Office card account is a very important element in the strategy, but it is only one element. In the past, the problem has been that the Post Office has locked into a declining market in which people simply want to cash giros. When people retire, more and more of them now want to carry on using the bank account that they have used throughout their lives. The £500 million investment that we have made, benefiting every post office in the country, has opened up that market to the Post Office and held out the prospect of a much more attractive commercial future for the post office network. I agree about the importance of post offices in our communities, which is why we have made such a substantial investment in their future.

    Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
    Mr. Mark Prisk: What efforts her Department is making to improve productivity growth rates among small and medium-sized enterprises.[110639]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): Improving productivity is central to the Government's economic strategy. We have overtaken Japan and narrowed the gap with Germany to 4 per cent., our research and development tax credits are helping an estimated 3,000 firms to keep ahead of our competition and, last year, more than 1,000 of our brightest businesses were offered SMARTs—small firms merit awards for research and technology—of £47 million to help develop their products in the marketplace.
    Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister for those proud statements, but, despite all that, the truth is that under this Government productivity growth has halved. That has happened not least because of the fact that the Government impose 15 regulations every working day. Two years ago, as I am sure you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the Government passed the Regulatory Reform Act. We were promised that there would be 50 new regulatory reform orders immediately. Yet, two years later, only 12 orders have been enacted. What happened to the other 38? Will the Minister explain why his Department has managed to pass just one regulatory reform order in 24 months?
    Nigel Griffiths: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that was one more order than the Conservative Government ever got to grips with in their time. Indeed, who was it who said that 28 licences, certificates and regulations were needed just to start a business? John Major made that comment at the 1992 Tory party conference. It now takes a day to set up a business, it costs less than £85 and there is no longer a need for 28 licences, so we will not take lectures about bureaucracy from the Conservatives.
    We take productivity very seriously, which is why we have introduced tax credits to support innovative SMEs with cash support worth up to 24 per cent. of their research and development and why SMEs' productivity as a proportion of large firms' productivity is increasing—it is up 1 per cent. in the most recent recorded figures to 93 per cent., and some SMEs are more efficient than large firms. We have taken the measures to increase productivity, and I noticed that the hon. Gentleman admitted in his supplementary question that productivity was improving.
    Brian White: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform has dealt with a large number of reforms this year? Is it not regrettable that Conservative Members very rarely turn up at that Committee?
    Nigel Griffiths: I am not here to get involved in party politics, but I am sure that the House and a wider audience will have noticed the excellent point made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Surely, if productivity was really improving that much, major plants would not be leaving the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page)

    417
    mentioned a number of plants that were moving out of the UK, but he did not mention Vauxhall, Dr. Martens, Wilkinson Sword and Coats Viyella. That is straightforward outward investment. Surely, we need improvements in productivity. How many more UK plants need to leave for the far east before the Government recognise that there is a crisis in manufacturing? Or will they rely on the SARS epidemic to save British industry?
    Nigel Griffiths: I know a little bit about the far east because I have just returned from a trade mission there. One of the facts that the Opposition choose to ignore is that, for instance, more than 70 per cent. of Taiwan's inward investment in Europe comes to Britain. In Japan, 43 per cent. of inward investment to Europe comes to Britain. I mentioned Honda in answering another question. What about Ford and those other big manufacturers that choose to invest in Britain? They do so because we have made Britain the preferred choice for the world for inward investment to Europe.

    British Manufacturers
    Tony Baldry: If she will make a statement on measures in the Budget designed to support British manufacturers.[110641]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Budget includes a number of measures that will support British manufacturers: in particular, the research and development tax credit, from which manufacturers already benefit; deregulatory reforms to ease the regulatory burden on small businesses; and further support to improve levels of skills throughout the UK work force.
    Tony Baldry: Much of manufacturing business needs to use steel somewhere in its processes. There is little in the Budget for such businesses, who are deeply concerned about what has been happening at Corus and about the fact that the Secretary of State seems to have been totally complacent in response to those events. What are the Government's proposals for the future of the UK steel industry?
    Ms Hewitt: We are all extremely concerned about the job losses at Corus, which have been going on for some years, and the prospect of further losses in some parts of the company. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I have been talking to the company, to the trade unions and to hon. Members who represent steel constituencies to ensure that we support that company and its outstanding work force in securing a successful future for the steel industry. That is of huge importance not only to the workers at Corus, for whom this is a time of enormous anxiety, but to the whole of our manufacturing industry. I welcome the fact that the new leadership at Corus is putting in place a strategy that is designed to return the company to profitability and to ensure that it remains at the heart of a high-volume, strategic and successful steel industry in the United Kingdom.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Public Health
    Mr. Paul Burstow: How many discussions she has had in the past year with the Secretary of State for Health regarding women's public health issues.[110644]
    Tom Brake: How many discussions she has had in the past year with the Secretary of State for Health regarding women's public health issues.[110647]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My officials have been working closely with the Department of Health and other Departments to draw together targets to tackle gender equality, including in public health. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for public health has ensured that women's needs are taken into account throughout our public health programmes, including those on breast cancer, cervical cancer and osteoporosis, and in our broader work on mental health, health inequalities and domestic violence.
    Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does she accept the comments that were recently made by Professor Adler of the Royal Free University medical college, who said that levels of sexual disease in England have reached crisis point, and that the Government's current levels of funding for sexual health will not even cover the costs of a chlamydial screening programme, let alone other sexually transmitted diseases? In her forthcoming discussions, will she and her officials raise the need to consider further funding for the treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases?
    Ms Hewitt: The increase in sexually transmitted diseases, particularly among young women, is a matter of enormous concern, and I will of course discuss it further with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
    Tom Brake: The Minister will be aware that in 2001 heart disease killed 54,000 women—it was the single biggest killer. What work is she doing with the Department of Health on that subject; and does she have a view on whether the much-publicised "eat chocolate to get fit" campaign will help to reduce heart disease among women?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the prevalence of heart disease and the number of deaths that it causes among women. As we know, heart disease is all too often seen as a male, not a female, disease, and in some tragic cases it is simply not diagnosed in women. The need to ensure that the medical profession pays attention to heart disease among women is an important part of the programme

    419
    introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to improve services and to cut the rate of preventable death from heart disease.
    John McDonnell: The Minister will probably be aware that yesterday there was an immensely successful conference in Parliament on endometriosis, which was attended by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears). It was organised by the all-party group on endometriosis, the National Endometriosis Society and the SHE Trust, and proposed a programme of work to raise the profile of that condition, which affects 2 million women in this country. Would she be willing to meet a delegation from the all-party group to discuss that programme?
    Ms Hewitt: I am aware of the conference and I congratulate everyone who was involved in organising it. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is already considering how it can improve advice to GPs on an extremely painful and common condition. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health would be delighted to receive a deputation on such an important issue.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Has my right hon. Friend considered the specific problem of secondhand smoke in her discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on women's public health issues? It carries additional risks for women of increased lung cancer and heart disease. What proposals is she examining to tackle that problem? Has she considered the possibility of a ban on smoking in restaurants and cafs?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, he has a Bill on the subject. The increase in smoking among young women is especially worrying not only for their health but for that of the children they will have. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is considering my hon. Friend's proposal for a ban on smoking in all public places. Those of us who are not smokers welcome the opportunity to enjoy smoke-free environments.
    Angela Watkinson: The Minister recognises the importance of sex education in schools in helping to deter immature and promiscuous sexual behaviour and reducing unwanted teenage pregnancies. What discussions has she held on the subject with her colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills?
    Ms Hewitt: I have discussed the matter with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills for some years. It is clear from experience not only here but in other countries, including the Netherlands, that the best way to ensure that young people do not engage in risky and premature sexual behaviour is to enable them to have an open discussion about not only sexual activity but the emotions and relationships associated with it and the desirability of a strong and loving relationship within which sex can take place.

    Equal Pay
    Mrs. Helen Clark: If she will make a statement about the Government's targets for equal pay.[110645]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are working to reduce the gender pay gap through a variety of measures, including equal pay reviews throughout the civil service by the end of April, working with the Equal Opportunities Commission to promote equal pay reviews by other employers, introducing an equal pay questionnaire as part of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and providing trade unions with additional funding for training representatives in equal pay issues.
    Mrs. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Doubtless she is aware that, despite the Equal Pay Act, which a previous Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, effected in 1976, women who work full time earn only 81p for every pound that men earn and women who work part time earn only 59p for every pound that men earn. More worryingly, within three years of graduation, women earn on average 15 per cent. less than their male counterparts.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Fawcett Society that unless the Government set firm targets, at the current snail's rate of progress, it will take 75 years before equal pay for women is truly achieved?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right about the shocking extent of the continuing pay gap. However, in order to reduce it, we need to take action, especially on the problem of low pay from which so many women suffer. The introduction of the national minimum wage on top of Barbara Castle's Equal Pay Act has already meant significant pay rises for nearly 1 million women. I am delighted that, a few weeks ago, I was able to announce further increases in the national minimum wage for this year and next year, following the Low Pay Commission's recommendations.
    At the top of the labour market, far too few women have access to the best paid jobs. Tribunal cases in the City have shown that even those women who get to the top do not receive equal pay. The cases that are being brought for equal pay for work of equal value—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. 1 want to give the shadow Minister time to come in.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The Minister for Women has just commended the civil service's progress towards achieving equal pay targets. In the light of that, how does she explain that only 19 of the 93 Government Departments or agencies conducted an equal pay review by the deadline last Wednesday, despite being given a year to do it?
    Ms Hewitt: All Government Departments are undertaking equal pay reviews. Those that have not completed them will shortly do so and put in place

    421
    action plans to ensure that the equal pay gaps revealed by the reviews are closed. With the involvement of ACAS, we have put in place the new grading structure and phased pay rises that will ensure that the women as well as the men in the Department receive fair pay.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Following that answer and the Government's initiative in trying to deal with the unacceptable gender pay gap through independent audits, can the Minister say how many corporations have agreed to conduct or have carried out independent, rigorous assessments of the type that she is
    422
    seeking? How many of the rather limited number of public sector reviews passed the test of being independent and rigorous?
    Ms Hewitt: The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Government are monitoring the take-up of equal pay reviews in the private sector. When we have that information, we will, of course, publish it. In the civil service, we have sought independent assistance in ensuring that reviews are carried out properly. They have revealed serious problems of unequal pay and we are putting in place the action needed to put that right.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Dr. John Reid): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 MAY—The House will not be sitting
TUESDAY 6 MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 7 MAY—Second Reading of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.
THURSDAY 8 MAY—Second Reading of the Fire Services Bill.
FRIDAY 9 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 12 MAY—Opposition day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 13 MAY—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14 MAY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 15 MAY—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day]. [First Part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a debate on developing a national skills strategy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 16 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for letting us have the business. The Second Reading of the foundation hospitals Bill will take place on 7 May. Will he reconsider whether one day is enough to allow his colleagues to air their views on that Bill? He said last night, in the pleasant little exchange that we had on a parliamentary matter, how grateful he was for the unusual support that he was getting from his parliamentary colleagues. Given that new confidence, perhaps he will consider having a two-day debate on the Second Reading of the foundation hospitals Bill, so that he can wallow further in the confidence of his parliamentary colleagues and demonstrate the extent of support that there is in the Labour party for foundation hospitals. That would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
May we have a debate very early on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy? I am told that the current Greek presidency of the European Union has indicated that it wants a final agreement as early as June on the new shape of the CAP. If that is the case, I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that it is extremely important that hon. Members, particularly those with agricultural and rural interests, have an opportunity to have their say about the CAP before the Government commit us to a position on CAP reform. I hope that he will agree that that is urgent and that he will provide Government time to debate it.
424
My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor referred yesterday to an astonishing error in the explanatory notes to the Finance Bill, which wrongly stated the basic rate of tax. In fairness to the Treasury—the Chancellor beetled out of the Chamber before he could hear what the shadow Chancellor said—a correction has been issued, but my right hon. and learned Friend asked for an undertaking that the Chancellor would come to the House before next Tuesday's debate on the Finance Bill to correct any further errors in the explanatory notes. We cannot be expected to start a major debate on the Finance Bill ill and erroneously informed by the Treasury about the basic elements of the legislation. I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that the Chancellor has done his homework, looked through the explanatory notes and satisfied himself that there are no further errors and, if there are, that he will come to the House to correct them. An apology—rare though it would be from the Chancellor—would not be out of place.
Has the Leader of the House opened his parliamentary mail this morning? I am sure that, like me, he opens his own post every morning and peruses the contents. If he has, he will have found a rather odd letter from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The letter was entitled, "Licensing Bill Surgery". I am sure that we would all like to see some—no, a lot of—surgery on the Licensing Bill, but that is not what was meant.
The letter pointed out that the Licensing Bill is currently in Committee, but went on to say:
"Certain aspects of the Bill have been contentious"—
that is a good start; the Secretary of State has at least noticed that—
"and some are still not fully understood."
It is not clear whether she meant by herself or by others. She continued:
"I believe that it is extremely important we are able to answer your fears and concerns"—
presumably including those of the Leader of the House—
"and to clarify any points of misunderstanding. I therefore propose to hold a surgery session at which you can put your points or concerns to my officials, the experts on the Bill."
I thought that that was what Standing Committees were for; to deal with contentious aspects of a Bill, to enable Members to understand it and to clear up any difficulties. The Secretary of State obviously does not believe that. Standing Committees are already being truncated and cut off—not just at the knees, but at other vital parts—and now we see a new departure. The Secretary of State is telling us to forget Committees, because they are a bore, in favour of surgeries for MPs, so that civil servants can do the heavy lifting, explain the nonsenses in a Bill and let Ministers off the hook. Will the Leader of the House explain what the hell is going on? Is he going to attend the surgery and have the Bill explained to him?
On 28 April, the Paymaster General rashly said, in the context of the child and working tax credits, that her
"aim is that … families will get their money by Friday of this week."—[Official Report, 28 April 2003; Vol. 404, c. 54.]
That is tomorrow, so will the Paymaster General make a statement next Tuesday to inform us whether the families have had all their money? That would be a welcome development.

425
Yesterday the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—I see him in his place, as ever—asked the Prime Minister a question. The hon. Gentleman first reminded the Prime Minister of a written parliamentary reply of 19 December 2001, in which he had said:
"Lord Wilson said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of the House of Commons and that if there were a development which required a change of policy, he"—
the Prime Minister—
"would at such a moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative, make a statement in the House about it."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 367W.]
This is an important matter. Yesterday and today, we have had sensational revelations about the apparent tapping of the telephones of Mo Mowlam—a former right hon. Member of this House—a member of the Prime Minister's staff and another Member of Parliament. If the revelations are true, surely the Prime Minister must keep faith with the undertaking of his predecessor, which he has confirmed, to tell the House what is going on.
All Members have an interest in this matter, Mr. Speaker, as must you. If Members of Parliament are to have their telephones tapped. we must know why and how. Most important of all—this is the key question— was it authorised by the Prime Minister? Either he knows what is going on or he does not. This matter is of the highest constitutional importance. I hope that the Leader of the House can either give us reassurances about this matter or instruct the Prime Minister to come to the House early next week to clarify the matter so that we know the truth about it.
Dr. Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. First, I should rectify the record by announcing the business for Westminster Hall, which I omitted to do first time round. I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in that.
On Thursday 15 May, there will be a debate on the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the case for the Human Rights Commission. On Thursday 22 May, there will be a cross-cutting question session on tackling drugs, followed by a debate on the report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on urban charging schemes. I am sure that the whole House will take a deep interest in all that business.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for further and greater debate on foundation hospitals. Within the constraints of parliamentary time, we are always prepared to give as much time as possible to subjects of great importance to the nation and to the future of our public services. That is certainly the case with foundation hospitals. The purpose of foundation hospitals is to give greater managerial freedom at a local level. All my colleagues and I support that purpose. The idea is to move from a top-down management system to one based on a few key rules within which organisations have much greater flexibility over managing their
426
resources and designing services. This innovation is part of our move to devolve responsibility to the front line and improve accountability to patients and the public.
Mr. Forth: Reading.
Dr. Reid: I did in fact read that, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Every word I said was taken from various speeches of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which shows our unanimity on all these issues. We will be extremely happy not only to discuss foundation hospitals, but to do so in the context of a comparison of health records. As the House will know, there are now nearly 50,000 more nurses than when we came to power, over 10,000 more doctors, 300,000 more operations and 750,000 additional elective admissions. When we compare that with what is offered as the alternative, we are more than happy to give time—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot take a point of order at this stage.
Dr. Reid: I assumed that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee would have known that.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Answer the question.
Dr. Reid: I am precisely answering the question about whether we would be prepared to give more time to debate health and foundation hospitals, particularly the alternative policies to those that we are pursuing; policies of making patients pay more for health care when they need it and slashing by 20 per cent. the amount of money put into health care.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the common agricultural policy and the position of the Greek presidency. At this stage, I am not entirely familiar with that. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will always look for opportunities to debate our support for agriculture within this country. We are investing about £500 million over three years, targeted to help farmers to add value to their products by reconnecting with customers.
On the Finance Bill, I am certain that the Chancellor will have ensured that every dot and comma of his document is accurate. If not, he will, with graciousness, accept responsibility for any mistakes and correct them, as he has done in the past.
I thought that there was a rather ungracious dismissal not only of my colleague, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but of the whole of Britain's culture and heritage in the rather swiping aside made by the shadow Leader of the House. I understood that he and his party were deeply interested in our culture and heritage and would thus have welcomed the efforts that my colleague, the Secretary of State, is making to offer even more openness and access not only to politicians but to civil servants, and to improve access to our culture and our historical heritage, as witnessed by the

427
huge increase in the number of people in this country who are visiting museums since we abolished entry charges to so many of them.
The shadow Leader mentioned tax credits. This issue is vital; the credits will benefit millions of people. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the task is massive. My understanding is that, at present, claims are being processed in respect of about 3 million of the 4 million received and that about 700 extra staff have been taken on. If anyone who was entitled to receive money last week has not yet received it, I deeply regret that, but I can assure them that a huge amount is being made available. I am sure that the Chancellor and his colleagues will be constantly available to answer questions as things develop. They take seriously the criticisms that have been made of their efforts so far.
The shadow Leader also raised the important issue of telephone tapping. The Prime Minister commented on that yesterday. For reasons that the House will, I hope, appreciate, I do not intend to add further to the comments made by my right hon. Friend, especially as I understand that arrests have been made in connection with the newspaper reports.
Andrew Mackinlay: There have been no charges.
Dr. Reid: I am not sure what has happened during the past few hours, since I came to the House, but I understand that arrests were made. In any case, even in normal circumstances, I should be reticent to make further comments at this stage. I hope that the shadow Leader of the House will accept that position.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am deputising for my colleague, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is in his constituency promoting local democracy.
First, I welcome the fact that we shall have an early opportunity to debate foundation hospitals. In order to make clear the terms of that debate, can the Leader of the House explain in a little more detail what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant in his comments to the Treasury Select Committee yesterday? The Chancellor seemed to imply that any additional borrowing for such hospitals would have to be within national health service financial ceilings, and would thus be at the expense of other parts of the NHS, confirming many people's worst fears about that initiative. Will the Leader of the House confirm that I have correctly understood the matter?
Secondly, the Leader of the House will be aware of concern in the House, expressed at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday and during Trade and Industry Question Time today, about the future of the steel industry. An Adjournment debate on the future of the industry will be held in Westminster Hall next week, but will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is a major issue that affects several regions—the north-east, south Yorkshire and south Wales—and raises major questions about executive pay and unfairness in that respect? Will he therefore ensure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, after meeting industry representatives tomorrow, returns on Tuesday with a full statement to the House about the crisis in that industry, the job losses and the potential responses?
428
Lastly, may I welcome the fact that last week we had a gracious apology from the Paymaster General about the administrative problems in the tax credit arrangements? I suggest to the Leader of the House, however, that a potentially even bigger administrative problem arises in relation to pensioners, as a result of the enormous changeover problems associated with post office accounts. Hundreds of thousands of pensioners are now trapped in an extremely complicated bureaucratic process; many are being guided towards bank accounts that they do not want, and many have no provision at all for drawing their cash in the months ahead. Since the Deputy Prime Minister has personally assumed responsibility for banging Ministers' heads together and sorting out the administrative mess, will the Leader of the House ask him to come to the House to make a statement before another Minister has to make another gracious apology for the mix-up that has occurred?
Dr. Reid: On pensioners, the Government have paid considerable attention to ensuring that the transition in relation to pensioners' access through post offices to benefits and pensions has been done as efficiently and as caringly as possible. As the hon. Gentleman may know, a range of options are now open to pensioners that were previously not available. A range of advantages are associated with that, including, of course, the fact that it minimises the possibility of attacks on pensioners, compared with the previous arrangement. He is absolutely right that, in such a big project, difficulties have arisen. We should be thankful that the Deputy Prime Minister has devoted so much time and energy to the matter. He continues to do so, and I am sure that if there are any other major issues that must be shared with the House, he will do that.
On the steel industry, the Government, along with Back-Bench Labour Members—and, I am sure, the whole House—deeply regret the decisions that have been taken. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I understand more than anyone the effects on individuals and the community of redundancies in the steel industry. At one stage, I had in my area some 20,000 steel jobs. I now have only a few hundred, and these are just outside, and not even inside, my constituency. The Government and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will put in enormous efforts, as we always do in such circumstances, to establish a taskforce to make sure that those who have lost their job are in a position to gain jobs through training and the creation of an environment in which new jobs flourish.
On foundation hospitals, I have already made our position clear, as have all my colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I quoted earlier. He has said that the purpose of foundation hospitals is to provide greater managerial freedom at local level, which he supports. In any project such as the reform and revitalisation of our public sector and public services, legitimate debate exists about the practical balance between the centre and front-line decisions, high-level decisions and decentralised decision-making, and the need to have prudence in fiscal controls at the centre but a degree of flexibility in borrowing to respond to the differentiated needs, choice and diversity required by modern working families who have greater ambitions than ever before. Of course, there is legitimate debate

429
about that, and we have conducted that debate inside and outside our party in a mature and robust fashion because it is a question of people's lives and the quality of their lives.
The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Government are totally united on this issue. We always benefit from the Liberal commitment—I think that this was what he said—to sharing and to educating the public on politics, and I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is absent today, does so with more honesty than the Liberals have shown on the subject of top-up fees. They have been pretending, in their party political broadcasts, that it is possible to provide education without paying for it. That is not the case. One must pay before one goes in or pay when one gets off at the end of the journey of education.
Joan Ruddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the US organisers of Monday's Baghdad conference failed to find a place for Dr. Besarani, who was the only woman delegate put forward by the Foreign Office? Will he arrange an urgent debate on how those preparations for the Iraqi interim authority are being conducted, and on how this Government's commitment to women's involvement in that process can be realised in practice?
Dr. Reid: Yes, I am aware of that, and I discussed it this morning with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Minister with responsibility for women's affairs. It is a matter of regret that the lady whom my hon. Friend mentions did not attend that conference, and it would be a matter of regret if women did not play a much fuller part in the future of Iraq than they have so far been allowed to do, as that is a vital component in allowing the Iraqi people to build a modern, democratic society for themselves. I cannot promise that there will be a debate here, but I assure her that this matter is at the forefront of Ministers' attention, and perhaps it is an issue that could be raised in Westminster Hall.
Sir George Young: The Leader of the House may know that the Committee on Standards in Public Life published its ninth report a few weeks ago, making important recommendations to guarantee against misuse of the Government information service, to control the numbers and powers of special advisers, to promote the impartiality of the civil service and to revise the code of conduct for Ministers. Will he find time for a debate on this most important subject?
Dr. Reid: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is an important subject. Although I cannot promise at this stage that there will definitely be a debate on it, I assure him that the Government take the matter most seriously.
Mr. David Watts: Can I inform my right hon. Friend that turnout in the local elections has increased in St. Helens from 27 per cent. to 45 per cent. due to the introduction of all-out postal voting? Will he find some time in the House to discuss that
430
important issue, to see what lessons are to be learned from those pilot schemes and to assess whether some of those measures should be made permanent?
Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the measures that he mentioned increase participation in elections, and I am sure that the Electoral Commission and others will produce a report on the matter. I am sure too that there will be endless possibilities to discuss the matter. Perhaps an Adjournment debate would be an appropriate method of putting some of those issues into the public domain, including the various means used in the trial, such as text messaging and postal balloting. Even interactive television could be used, which would be completely novel as far as this country is concerned. Clearly, however, interest and participation in elections is determined not just by the technical means by which people vote but by the profile and campaigning of political parties. We all therefore have a responsibility to ensure increased participation.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Following the comments about the right to vote, the Leader of the House will be aware that elections are being held today in Scotland and Wales and that elections should have been held in Northern Ireland. Those were postponed, and legislation went through the House under which they were to be held on 29 May. Today, in Northern Ireland, it has been reported in the media that those elections have been postponed. I have just been told that a junior Minister in the Dail has confirmed that they are postponed. Surely the House, which passed the legislation, should have been informed, rather than hearing it from the media and from a Minister in another Government.
Dr. Reid: If any decision had been taken, the House would have been informed. The reality is that the date has been set—29 May—as the hon. Gentleman knows. There are no current plans to postpone those elections. We want to go into an election in which voters elect people to an Assembly with a real prospect of assuming devolved power. Time is pressing, but we remain focused on trying to bring that about. If and when any decision is made, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that, if there is any change in those arrangements, we will immediately bring such a decision to the House at the first opportunity.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1120, which is the last one to be published and is entitled "Solidarity with the Iraqi Independent Trade Union Movement"?
[That this House recalls that on May Day 1959 the Iraqi Labour Movement mobilised one million people out of the then population of 14 million for a massive march in Baghdad to celebrate International Workers' Day; sends its heartfelt solidarity to the Workers' Democratic Trade Union Movement in the Iraqi Republic on the occasion on 1st May 2003 of the first free labour movement march since the demise of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship; further notes that the Iraqi trade union movement is working for the creation of a unified, federal and democratic Iraq that transcends religious, ethnic and nationalist divisions and also guarantees political and

431
trade union rights, which were denied by the Baathist regime and its bogus trade union machine; and supports their call for the transfer of power from the occupying forces to an interim and broadly based coalition government which could remove the remnants of Saddam's dictatorship and prepare a permanent constitution which would provide the basis for free and fair elections under the direct supervision of the United Nations.]
Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the workers democratic trade union movement on organising a march in Baghdad today, May day, that helps us to remember the massive demonstration of 1 million people out of a population of 14 million that took place in Baghdad in 1959? Can the early-day motion be part of a debate on the future of Iraq, in which we can discuss its democratisation and reconstruction and deal with the point about the 300 people who were drawn together in Baghdad to get democratic procedures moving? No one from a trade union was represented in that group, there was probably one person from the Labour movement, an Assyrian socialist and a few women. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) could obviously also be dealt with, because no women trade unionists attended because no trade unionists at all were present.
Dr. Reid: I am familiar with the early-day motion entitled "Solidarity with the Iraqi Independent Trade Union Movement". Indeed, I have a great deal of sympathy for its contents. My honourable Friend draws a parallel with the participation of women in the new Iraq and their complete absence in the new formations that have been established, a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) will be aware that we are coming out of very difficult circumstances, including a military campaign. We are in the very early stages of allowing the formation of systems and structures whereby the Iraqi people will determine their own future, but I hope that two things will ultimately transpire. The first is an Iraq that is for the Iraqi people themselves, and secondly, I hope that the form of government there will be as democratic and as inclusive as possible and will allow the whole spectrum of the people of Iraq to participate in the decisions about the future of their country. We would all be pleased if that could be achieved.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1090?
[That this House applauds the bravery and valour of Coalition forces, deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom; congratulates all servicemen involved on their professionalism in securing the aims of their mission so quickly; remembers those who tragically lost their lives in the service of Queen and country; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to organise a heroes parade through the streets of London, for all returning UK servicemen to mark their homecoming.]

The motion is about the need for a heroes' homecoming parade for all the brave service men and women who have served our country in the Gulf. As the
432
war concludes, will e right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Government to make a statement on when a homecoming parade will take place through the streets of London so that the British people can rightly salute the bravery and courage of our service men and women as they return from that conflict?
Dr. Reid: I have some sympathy for the contents of that early-day motion, as the hon. Gentleman might expect given my past association with our armed forces. We fully understand the sentiment behind the motion and, once again, we congratulate our forces on the professionalism and courage that they have demonstrated in Iraq. Of course, we remember with pride, gratitude and a great deal of sadness those who have given their lives in the conflict.
An event for the armed forces personnel returning from duty in the Gulf is certainly a possibility; it is under consideration. It could take one of various forms—a memorial service, some sort of homecoming parade or whatever. However, it is too early for me to say when that might be appropriate or what exact form it might take.
John Cryer: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1086 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham)?
[That this House notes that on Workers' Memorial Day on 28th April the London death watch unit, a joint initiative of the Battersea and Wandsworth Trades Union Council and the General Municipal & Boilermakers Union, London Region, issued new figures obtained from the Health and Safety Executive listing 191 work-related deaths since 1996 in the London area alone; further notes that the vast majority of these deaths were in the construction and maintenance industries; and believes that these sad new statistics highlight the importance of the Government bringing forward, at the earliest possible opportunity, the long-awaited legislation on corporate killing and the reform of the law on involuntary manslaughter designed to improve the chances of successfully prosecuting those employers known to have flouted health and safety regulations and which have contributed to the deaths of their employees.]
The motion points out that, since 1996, there have been 191 work-related deaths in the London area alone, and most of them were in the maintenance and construction industries. It calls for legislation to make corporate killing a crime, which has been in the headlines a great deal recently because we are approaching the first anniversary of the Potters Bar train crash in which a number of people lost their lives and several were injured. Jarvis, the contractor involved, not only evaded prosecution but briefed the press to the effect that there had been sabotage when there was absolutely no evidence that that had taken place. That is a sign of the kind of people with whom we are dealing. Is it not about time that we had the crime of corporate killing on the statute book?
Dr. Reid: I note what my hon. Friend says and the contents of the early-day motion to which he draws my attention. I am sure that, like many others in the House, I have a great deal of understanding of its contents and sympathy for the sentiments that it expresses. As he probably knows, the Government are committed to reforming the law to increase corporate liability for

433
manslaughter, and we will do that when parliamentary time allows. Our intention is to provide a clearer avenue for securing successful prosecutions against undertakings whose health and safety standards have fallen far below what could reasonably be expected and where the failure to uphold standards has, in part, been responsible for a death.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement about the Government's relationships with British Aerospace? I ask this because, earlier this week, Sir Michael Boyce, the retiring Chief of the Defence Staff, once again questioned the Government's commitment to purchasing all 232 Eurofighters currently under construction in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Government have yet to give a firm commitment to buy the second tranche of those aircraft, and today British Aerospace put on notice more than 400 jobs at its Brough plant because the Government have yet to make up their mind on buying the advanced jet trainer. To remove those uncertainties from aerospace workers, particularly in the northern half of the country, will he arrange for a statement to clarify the Government's position?
Dr. Reid: I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Defence will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments. However, if I were my right hon. Friend, I would immediately respond by saying it is rather bizarre to question our commitment to providing the resources necessary for our armed forces when, unlike the previous Government, instead of slashing defence expenditure we have—for the first time in a long while—increased it. The right hon. Gentleman refers to British Aerospace, but he might like to recall that not only have the Government provided the biggest naval programme that any Government have ever provided for the Royal Navy but, only recently, we announced the building of two huge aircraft carriers in which the prime contractor will be British Aerospace.
I will draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence, but my right hon. Friend may be rather less generous in accepting them than if they had carried more substance.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am conscious of the pressure on the parliamentary programme that additional debates on Iraq may have caused, but is my right hon. Friend able to find time for a debate on the Learning and Skills Council's review of the area cost uplift? He will know that, as a result of that review, colleges such as North West London college in my constituency may face a shortfall of up to £1.4 million each year. The criteria that the Learning and Skills Council used in assessing the area cost uplift take into account two conflicting factors. The first is the high cost of living in a particular area, and the other is the possible detraction of a particularly insalubrious area. It seems that the council has been able to use those criteria to argue whatever case suits it when it arrives at the final figures for the area cost uplift.
Dr. Reid: I fully understand the importance that my hon. Friend places on the Learning and Skills Council.
434
He will appreciate that it is not always possible, even with very important issues, to make time available because of the tremendous strain of business that we have in the House. The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) announced a Commons calendar last October that gave precise, though provisional, dates of recesses. I remind the House—[Interruption.] I shall also remind the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), if she will listen to what I was about to say, that the dates were provisional and the calendar came with a health warning that it would
"depend on the progress of business."—[Official Report, 31 October 2003; Vol. 391, c. 1001.]
Events in Iraq had a considerable impact on the business of the House. There were demands for regular updates and for unprecedented debates on whether the House would support a conflict and our troops' participation. I do not complain about such demands and the House will accept that the Government responded fully to them. However, a considerable strain has been placed on the time available for the House to consider legislation. The situation changes on a daily basis, but with the support and co-operation of all hon. Members it still might be possible to achieve the dates that were provisionally announced.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The Leader of the House said a few moments ago—encouragingly, if somewhat tendentiously—that he and the Government are always prepared to allow sufficient time to discuss important issues in the Chamber. In the light of that comment, has he reflected on comments from senior members of the other place about the amount of time that the House discussed the Communications Bill? Lord Fowler of Sutton Coldfield, who is a highly respected and senior member, pointed out earlier this week that many clauses had not been discussed in the House. I spoke on Report about the market dominance of the BBC, and the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport explained courteously to me afterwards that he would have liked to respond to my points but he did not have time in which to do that. Given that the Leader of the House has said that he intends to ensure that the House has sufficient time to consider matters, I hope that he will bear in mind the experience of our consideration of that Bill.
Dr. Reid: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am aware of several things that he mentioned. I understand that the programming of the Bill allowed adequate time to cover several of the issues that he mentioned. If Opposition Members had not spent inordinate time on other matters, those to which he refers could have been covered adequately. He will appreciate that we try to treat such matters as seriously as possible despite the huge constraints that are placed on us. We try to allow sufficient time for consideration, but if Opposition Members spend inordinate time on issues that the hon. Gentleman might consider to be less important, that has an impact on more important issues.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent statement on the

435
appalling suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, which was apparently conducted by two British citizens—Asif Mohammed Hanif, who killed three people as well as himself and injured many more; and Omar Khan Sharif, who is wanted in Israel for that attack? The statement should examine the links between those individuals and fundamentalist extremists in Britain such as Abu Hamza and organisations such as al-Muhajiroun. A representative of its leadership, Anjam Choudhury, spoke on Radio 4 this morning and appeared to encourage and endorse suicide attacks in Britain by citizens from overseas. Is it not about time that we got to grips with the appalling problem of Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism in Britain?
Dr. Reid: First, I want to express my deep regret, and that of the whole House, about the events that led to the tragic deaths. Of course, there were more deaths among the Palestinians overnight. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his considerable work to expose the dangers posed by, and the work of, some of the extremists in this country. I was heartened that the Muslim Council of Britain, which claims to represent more than 350 Islamic organisations and mosques in the United Kingdom, condemned the words of al-Muhajiroun on the "Today" programme this morning. The secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Iqbal Sacranie, said that Mr. Choudhury's comments were inflammatory and would harm community relations in Britain. He said that it was alarming to think that young Britons could be involved in acts of such a ghastly nature. All hon. Members would agree with those words and with the words with which he finished:
"Let us be absolutely clear. The loss of innocent life is against the laws of humanity"—
irrespective, I would add, of the religion to which people adhere.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Has the Leader of the House yet had time to find out what on earth has happened to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? I raised the matter before Easter and I had expected to hear from him. The Bill was considered in 12 short Committee sittings under a Government timetable motion meaning that most of it was not discussed at all—that practice is becoming more frequent. That happened more than three months ago, and four months will have passed before the House may consider the Bill's Report stage. Has the Bill been mislaid, will it be withdrawn, or is it on course?
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has raised that point before. The Bill is important, but I cannot give him more comfort than I did last time. We make every effort to ensure that important Bills are passed as quickly as possible. That is not possible in all cases, but we have been assisted by several elements of the modernisation of the House such as pre-legislative scrutiny and carryover. However, there is limited time even with such assistance. I hear the hon. Gentleman's comments but regret that I cannot give him a more definite answer.
Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will recognise the significance of the British construction industry not only to the Government's programme but to export potential. Will he grant a
436
debate on that on the Floor of the House? If that is not possible, will he consider allowing questions about the British construction industry to be asked in one of the cross-cutting question sessions that have been so successfully held in Westminster Hall?
Dr. Reid: I entirely agree. The construction industry is regarded as rather old fashioned in some quarters, but it is anything but that. It is at the forefront of British industrial practice, and I hope that all the work done by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is widely recognised by hon. Members. The United Kingdom construction industry is experiencing the strongest growth of such an industry in Europe and, in 2001, it secured £4.7 billion-worth of new work in other countries. It does not operate only at home, but in the international sphere. I regret that some Opposition Members have attempted to decry the Government's efforts to assist the construction industry, especially with regard to Iraq. I was pleased that prominent members of the industry, such as AMEC, wrote to the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to ask them to desist from so doing because the Government have been extremely effective at bringing what the British construction industry could offer to the attention of the relevant United States authorities, as well as making other international efforts. I hope that we can all pull together in support of cur industry rather than dividing and trying to undermine efforts that have been made.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a few hon. Members standing. I wish to call them all but I need them to cooperate by asking brief questions of the Leader of the House.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Following the important question asked by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the murderous bomb attack in Tel Aviv, can the Leader of the House persuade the Home Secretary to make a statement on the possibility of reintroducing exit controls on passport holders at British airports and ports to ensure that the United Kingdom does not export terrorism to friendly countries overseas?
Dr. Reid: I am sure that that matter is under discussion in the Foreign Office in the light of that regrettable event. All the implications of such an event are being considered as we speak, and have been for some time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments have been heard.
Mr. Kevan Jones: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1100?
[That this House notes the statement by the honourable Member for Kingston and Surbiton on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that 'War is not an issue for the local elections. Our advice to candidates has been not to campaign on it because, with British citizens fighting, it's in poor taste; further notes that in Manchester, Birmingham, Leicester and elsewhere, Liberal Democrat local election candidates have been seeking to con Muslim electors into voting for them by campaigning on an anti-Iraq war platform; and observes that such opportunistic

437
hypocrisy by Liberal Democrat local government candidates, not to mention poor taste, is entirely characteristic of every aspect of Liberal Democrat campaigning.]
I am concerned that despite assurances from those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench that the war in Iraq would play no part in the local election campaigns, local Liberal Democrat council candidates are campaigning today on an anti-war platform while our brave service men and women serve in Iraq. Is it possible to find time to debate that subject so that ': he Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen can answer for their local election candidates?
Dr. Reid: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. It is perhaps too parti pris to comment that we are used to the Liberal Democrats saying one thing in the House and another thing on the doorstep. For the Liberal Democrats, it is often worse than that, however. To get elected in last year's local elections, Liberal Democrat candidates who were husband and wife managed both to oppose and to support hotly disputed issues of local parking restrictions during the same campaign. I suppose that shows us how family friendly their policies can be. Indeed, they are so expanded that they can incorporate contradictory points of view. I am sure that, like the House, the public recognise that pretending to be all things to all people is not credible. Those who promise everything to everyone rarely deliver anything to anyone.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I back the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for an early debate on reform of the common agricultural policy. The Leader of the House may not be aware, but Brandons turkey factory closed with immediate effect this week, leading to a loss of 300 jobs at Dalton near Thirsk in the Vale of York. In all probability, 60 turkey farms will go out of business and 50 suppliers and contractors will lose access to that market, all of which is on top of an ongoing farm crisis across North Yorkshire. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is well briefed on the subject. Would it be possible to debate the matter be Fore decisions are taken in Brussels on reform of the CAP?
Dr. Reid: I referred to that matter earlier. The hon. Lady has taken a deep interest in such matters for many years. I agree with many of her comments and we are often on the same side of an argument, which I hope does not further antagonise the Conservative Front
438
Bench towards her. I am sure that we will explore all opportunities to discuss that important issue, if not here then in other forums in the House.
Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Zimbabwean cricketers are about to arrive in this country. Many of us remember that during the worst excesses of the apartheid regime, the sports boycott was one of the most effective boycotts. Does he agree that this rather grubby tour gives all the wrong signals? We want a truly democratic regime in Zimbabwe that will deal with human rights abuses. With the best will in the world, it gives out the wrong signal to have their cricketers here.
Dr. Reid: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments. What is happening in Zimbabwe is a deep disappointment to everyone who wanted a flourishing, prosperous and democratic future for its people after a long time during which they were prevented from controlling their destiny. It is one of the terrible tragic ironies of history that, after a brief interlude in historical terms, they find themselves once again denied real democratic control over their country. Perhaps it is even more tragic and ironic this time because someone who comes from the biggest ethnic group in Zimbabwe—the Shona tribe—is preventing the people from reaching their full democratic destiny.
Andrew Mackinlay: May I first tell the Leader of the House that neither he nor the Prime Minister can or should hide behind a sub judice rule that does not exist or apply in the case of tapping MPs' telephones? No one has been charged so the sub judice rule does not apply. Secondly, in respect of the Prime Minister's final comments yesterday, the Wilson rules have been breached or varied by him and a statement should be made, as the rules provided for an exception from the normal rule under which the Prime Minister does not normally comment on security matters. Thirdly, my parliamentary questions have been blocked under the blocking rule. That simply will not do. It cannot be sustained. The sooner that clarity is provided and a statement made from the Dispatch Box, the better for the Government and the House.
Dr. Reid: On the final point, I am not aware of the details of my hon. Friend's questions. No doubt he will bring those to my attention outside the Chamber. On the allegations that appeared in a newspaper deriving from a book on telephone tapping, I have nothing to add. I note that my hon. Friend makes the distinction between arrests and charges. I also note, as he will do, that events in Northern Ireland change with amazing rapidity, almost by the minute as we now know, both on that subject and in respect of other events that take place there. What I say at one moment can be contradicted at another because circumstances change. Although he draws the distinction between investigation, arrest, charge and so on, I stand by the comments on that subject that I made about half an hour ago.

Points of Order
1.27 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the context of the earlier exchange on telephone tapping, I found it a privilege to be called an ass because my master rode into Jerusalem on the coat of an ass. However, the whole House has been made an ass of in respect of what has just happened. The Leader of the House, a distinguished member of the Government who served in the Northern Ireland Office, told us that no decisions had been made; yet a junior Minister in Dublin confirmed to reporters that it was no secret that the elections were being postponed. That is bad enough, but the report also says:
"the Northern Ireland Secretary Paul Murphy was due to make a statement in the House of Commons"
today and that the
"Prime Minister Tony Blair is to make a statement on Northern Ireland in 10 Downing Street at 2.30 pm, his official spokesman said".
Surely the mother of Parliaments in England should be standing by its citizens and this Parliament. This is a democratic forum which, as I understand it, passed a law stating that the elections should be held on 29 May.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman because it will assist the House.
I have been approached in the last 10 minutes and have agreed in exceptional circumstances, as the House will rise today for the long weekend, to a request from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the matter this afternoon. The statement will take place at a convenient moment after 2.30 pm.
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for being so characteristically helpful, but I invite you to consider urgently what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) just told us. If the Prime Minister intends to make a statement at No. 10 Downing street, may I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you or your Office should urgently contact the Prime Minister and invite—I might even say instruct—him to come to the House to make a statement on this important issue? Welcome though the Secretary of State may well be in the House, surely it would be absurd and an insult to the House if the Secretary of State were to come here to make a statement while the Prime Minister was making a statement elsewhere and denying us the opportunity to question him on the issue. That cannot be right, and I ask you urgently to follow up the matter.
Mr. Speaker: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I cannot instruct the Prime Minister to come here.
Mr. Forth: Well, invite him then.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman put it to me that I should instruct the Prime Minister, and I am telling him that I cannot. The Northern Ireland
440
Secretary is coming to the House to make a short statement. I further understand that there will be a fuller statement next Tuesday. That is the position, and I can say no more.
Andrew Mackinlay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention the fact that Northern Ireland business will be discussed in Westminster Hall this afternoon? It will not have escaped anybody's attention that the core Members who are likely to be there are also likely to want to be here for the statement. Can you ensure that there is provision for a suspension of Westminster Hall, so that the great and the good and others can get here to hear this great statement? Otherwise, there will be a mass exodus from Westminster Hall and somebody will say, in parliamentary terms, "Oops, there's nobody here."
Mr. Speaker: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said before, is that I am bound by the rules of the House, and it is not within those rules to suspend the proceedings in Westminster Hall while a statement is being made on the Floor of the House.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the moment, under the law of this House an election has been called. What is more, I have contacted the authorities in Northern Ireland, and they tell me that, tomorrow morning, they are bound to take nominations for that election. How quickly will the House bring into conformity with the law what we are now being told is to happen?
I had assurances from the Secretary of State, over and over again, that there would be no change to the date. It was impossible for any Northern Ireland Member of the House to get anything out of the Northern Ireland Office today; we were fobbed off every time we rang. Now we have come to the House and we are told that we will hear a statement, but that is not sufficient—the law has to be changed, or else all the candidates must, under the law, submit their nomination papers tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should seek an opportunity to catch my eye after the Northern Ireland Secretary has made his statement, and he can then put his questions to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the statement not at least be delayed until after 2.30 pm because of the position of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee? Westminster Hall will meet at half-past 2 to debate its important report on terrorism. We need an opportunity at least to have some discussion about that. If there is no possibility of abandoning or holding up those proceedings, perhaps Westminster Hall could finish its business early so that Members could return to the Floor of the House. If the statement was postponed for three quarters of an hour, so that it started at 3.15 pm, it would be possible to accommodate Northern Ireland Members on the Select Committee who want to debate the report in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Speaker: I must work on the basis of what is convenient to the House, and the House has always been keen to put it to me that Ministers must come here and

441
inform the House. That is why I have made the exceptional decision to interrupt a debate to allow a Minister to come to the House to talk about a matter that is of great concern, particularly to Northern Ireland Members.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have always been most assiduous in protecting our rights and in ensuring that Ministers of the Crown, whenever possible, come first to the House to give statements on important matters. You said that the Northern Ireland Secretary thought that it would be convenient to come here this afternoon. Since his intention was known to the Government of the Republic of Ireland before business questions, would it not have been much more convenient for Members if the matter had been put on the annunciator in good time and we could have had the statement at the appropriate moment, namely, at the close of ordinary questions? We could then have had a full attendance of Members and this important matter could have been given the attention that it deserves. Can you bring to the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers the dissatisfaction of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Let me explain that my decision is an exceptional one. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it would have been more convenient if due notice of the statement had been given so that it could have gone on the annunciator. However, I faced the problem that we are about to go into a long weekend, and to refuse the request would have been to deny the House the opportunity to question the Secretary of State.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Dr. John Reid): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let me make my position plain. I understand some of the comments that have been made, and in view of my earlier remarks I wish to assure the House that when I entered the Chamber my information was that no decision to make any changes had been made. I would
442
not want anyone here to think—not that anyone would—that I had in any way, inadvertently or otherwise, misled the House.
This is a difficult situation, and often things change literally by the minute. I ask for the indulgence of right hon. and hon. Members in understanding how fast flowing decisions in Northern Ireland can be when they are dependent on all sorts of discussions. I can tell the House that, in the previous 24 hours, I have discussed the matter with the Northern Ireland Secretary a couple of times, but when I entered the Chamber no decision had been made. Of course, had I any inkling that a decision was likely to be made in the three quarters of an hour during which I was here, I would have shared that with the House.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to be helpful to the House, particularly to Northern Ireland Members, who will be very interested in the statement to be made by the Northern Ireland Secretary. Having said that, may I say that I had not for one moment doubted the integrity of the Leader of House? I do not think that a single Member doubted his integrity. He came here in total ignorance of what has subsequently happened.
You, Mr. Speaker, have talked about the convenience of Members, particularly those from Northern Ireland. Would not it be possible to have the statement either at half-past 5, when Westminster Hall ceases its debate, or at 2 o'clock or even a quarter to 2 today, to enable Northern Ireland Members to hear the statement and ask supplementary questions and to participate in what is, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, a very important debate on terrorism in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Speaker: What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that a Minister has asked to come to the House as soon as possible, and I have accepted that request. I know that it causes inconvenience in other parts of the House, but I have agreed to that request, and that is why the statement will be made at half-past 2.

Orders of the Day

  Broadband
  [Relevant documents: The First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on Broadband in Wales, (NC95), and the Government's response thereto, (HC 4130).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Derek Twigg.]
  1.38 pm
  The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): It is no secret that compared with a number of other countries the UK has made a slow start with broadband communications. It is equally clear, though, that we are making rapid progress, and I believe that the whole House will welcome that. However, there are major challenges on the road to our target, which is that the UK should have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7, and in opening this important debate I want to concentrate on those challenges.
  In our debate on rural broadband in Westminster Hall on 25 March, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who I am pleased to see in his place, referred in generous terms to a report that I wrote on broadband, which was published in 1987. In that I forecast that there would be 600,000—[Interruption]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I think that he is entitled to the undivided attention of the House and I deplore other conversations—indeed, other meetings—taking place in the Chamber during a debate.
  Mr. Timms: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In that report, I forecast that there would be 600,000 broadband connections in the UK by 2000. In fact, it took longer than that: 600,000 was reached by the time of my appointment to my present position a year ago this month. By that time, however, thanks to the work of my predecessors and the effective competitive environment that we have established in the UK, the number was growing rapidly: from 1987 it took until last October to reach 1 million UK broadband connections, but it will have taken only about nine months to add the second million, which I expect us to achieve in the course of this month. Today, there are more than 1.9 million connections—1 million via cable modems and 900.000 via ADSL—and the number is increasing by well over 30,000 a week, which is one of the fastest rates of growth anywhere. Independent research has identified the UK as having the second-largest broadband network in Europe after Germany. More than 70 per cent. of households can access one of the mass-market broadband services.
  All those data give us grounds for a good deal of satisfaction and an opportunity to congratulate all those in the service-providing organisations on what they have achieved. Those organisations include BT; the cable companies NTL and Telewest; the broadband internet service providers Pipex, AOL, Freeserve and, on some estimates, more than 300 others; wireles
  444
  sproviders such as Firstnet; and committed locally based innovators such as. Rutland Online and Alston Cybermoor. I believe that the whole House will join in congratulating them on the progress made in the past 12 months.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Unfortunately, I was unable to join the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) for the Westminster Hall debate on rural broadband access. If he has an opportunity, will the Minister say when he envisages 100 per cent. accessibility to broadband being achieved? Houses, including my own, in rural constituencies such as mine and my hon. Friend's cannot get broadband, I presume because of the sparsity factor. Next. Friday, I am to open a broadband business centre, but that is in quite a big village; we in the smaller rural hamlets cannot get broadband—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Garnier: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was rather long.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not anticipate my ruling, but I think he guesses that he has gone on too long.
  Mr. Timms: As far as I know, nowhere in the world has 100 per cent. broadband availability, but I shall address the issues that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises soon.
  Lawrie Quinn: I add my congratulations to all the providers my hon. Friend mentioned. In my area, that the local exchanges have been enabled is owed to a community local partnership—the FAST group—going out and persuading people. Is not that the way to broaden the broadband agenda for Britain?
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I join him in paying tribute to all the community campaigns that have developed throughout the country and encouraged people to sign up for the broadband demand registration schemes that some operators have implemented. BT tells me that it has now upgraded 104 exchanges for broadband as a result of its demand registration scheme, and it plans in the next few months to announce targets that, if they are met, will take ADSL coverage to 90 per cent. of UK households. Service providers have found that the initiative of community campaigns has built demand that makes their investments in broadband worthwhile in a large number of communities around the country, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the achievements of those campaigns, many of which are continuing.
  I welcome the enthusiasm and resources that the regional development agencies have contributed, recognising the importance of broadband for small firms in their regions. In addition, we are witnessing the rapid roll-out of wi-fi technology, which enables public access to wireless broadband in public places such as coffee shops and business hotels, and which will become a significant element in provision.

  445
  Congratulating those who have contributed to the achievements of the past year is not to underestimate the scale of the challenge that remains Almost 30 per cent. of households are not within reach of a mass-market broadband service. Almost 5,000 small businesses in such areas use satellite broadband, which is available more or less everywhere—it may be the approach being employed in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). However, for many that is a rather expensive solution, so we must go much further in extending the availability of the affordable services that are now having such an impact on competitiveness in the areas in which they are available. That is the reason that broadband is so important. Broadband enables companies to work better and faster, boosting competitiveness and creating new jobs and services. Increasingly, MPs—mainly those representing rural areas not served by broadband—tell me that firms in parts of their constituency are at a disadvantage, in some cases to the extent that they might consider moving elsewhere.
  The experience of Sarah Smith, a specialist medical writer based in a village in north Wales, underlines the point. She uses satellite broadband and finds that the new connection saves her about two days a month in time spent waiting for large files to download. She no longer has to alert her ISP when she is expecting an especially large file. The installation was not cheap, but it has saved her money. Malvern Boilers, a manufacturer of condensing boilers that employs 20 people in Worcestershire, found that broadband allowed it an instantaneous e-mail service, resulting in much better communications with its suppliers and customers. Another result of adopting broadband is that the company uses the internet far more to aid its marketing. The company has found real competitive advantages in broadband. In the Westminster Hall debate, I mentioned the case of Quintdown Press in Cornwall, whose proprietor I met during a visit last autumn. Broadband is available in rural parts of Cornwall through the Access for Cornwall through Telecommunications for New Opportunities Worldwide, the ACT NOW partnership, funded by European Union regional development funds.
  Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend will be aware of the route map—not for the middle east, but for rural broadband—recently published under the auspices of BT, which has result ed in the creation of a number of partnerships in various remote parts of the country. Does he agree that there is a need to increase their number? What role can the Government play, not only with BT, but with RDAs, county councils and other local government bodies, and small and medium-sized business, to bring those partnerships together so that they can genuinely effect the type of changes he is describing?
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will spend some time exploring later in my speech. However, I agree that the partnerships now being established with RDAs as key players will be an important part of the solution.
  446
  To return to the example of Quintdown Press, by using broadband rather than a van to transfer artwork, the company has been able to reduce the turnaround on print jobs at its shop in Truro from three days to one day. The impact on the quality of its service and on the competitiveness of its customers' businesses is significant. The examples I have given show how important it is that we step up our efforts to extend the availability of broadband and that we maximise the resulting economic gains for rural communities and the UK as a whole.
  Just as broadband will be key in the commercial economy, so it will be key in delivering the reforms to public services that are the Government's highest priority. The past few years have witnessed dramatic improvements in public services and a new confidence on the part of those who deliver them and the rest of us who depend on them. Taking full advantage of technological advances will be key to the next stage of reform, and broadband will be at the heart of that. That is why, between them, Ministers in education, health, the criminal justice system and local government have earmarked 1 billion from their spending settlement last summer for spending on broadband communications.
  In education, every school will be provided with broadband by 2006—at least two megabits two-way in each primary school and eight megabits per second in every secondary school. So far, about a quarter of England's schools have broadband. The roll-out of broadband to every school will open up pupils' access to vast new online resources for teaching and learning.
  Mr. James Paice: Will not two problems relate to the issue of connection of schools, bearing in mind the huge expenditure that the Government have committed to it? Obviously we all want to see schools connected. First, there are large parts of the country where pupils may be able to use broadband at school but will not be able to do their homework on it because the areas in which they live are not connected to it. Secondly, having invested a great deal of money in connecting schools, that will be of no use to the community because the network goes through the Government network and therefore cannot be used as an access route for the rest of the community.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue on which I want to spend quite a lot of time. Essentially, I believe that there are ways of leveraging the investment that will be made in broadband for public services to extend access to those services to other users. I shall explain in a little more detail how I see that happening. The hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the Cambridgeshire schools' broadband project, which is demonstrating clear benefits in time saved and much greater use of online educational resources. That has translated into increased levels of attention—particularly from boys, and we know that underachievement on the part of boys is a key challenge for schools—and improvements in performance. That is what we want to see throughout the school system.
  Every doctor's surgery will have at least a 256 kilobytes per second connection by March 2004. There will be larger facilities of 2 megabytes per second and more. Patients will have electronic records so that, wherever they are in the national health service, all the

  447
  key details about their medical history will be accessible by the professionals responsible for their care. Through the new NHS university, professional development material will be delivered online via broadband to NHS staff at their place of work, with the Government investing in their skills.
  The criminal justice system will be transformed from the paper-based system that is now in operation. We shall see radial changes as well in local government.
  As well as delivering these important improvements to public services, the investment in broadband by the public services as a customer will provide the opportunity to extend access to broadband services into many communities where they are not available at present.
  Brian White: My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable work that is done in Canada, where those involved examined the barriers that stopped communities using various networks and opened up the different networks to communities. Will my hon. Friend assure us that the efforts that were made in Canada will be replicated by Government Departments in this country, and that we will not have the mentality that prevents universal access?
  Mr. Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are some important lessons for us to learn from what has been achieved in Canada. I agree with him also about the direction in which we need to go. I shall explain how we see us making a reality of that. In principle, once the school or the doctor's surgery in a community has broadband, there should be the opportunity for others in that community to access the services provided by it. To make a reality of that possibility by organising the demand from public services in aggregating them and so creating a viable business case for the provision of broadband in areas where it is not yet available will be the key. That is in line with the Canadian experience and experience elsewhere, and will lead to the next phase of broadband development in the UK.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: As I understand it, many public service connections are delivered down a dedicated private line. Is the Minister saying that all these private lines will be accessible to public use at some stage in the near future?
  Mr. Timms: I shall explain how I see these things going forward. I can tell the House that I shall be chairing a ministerial steering group with representatives from each of the major Government Departments to drive forward the development of this project and to ensure that we make it a success. It will ensure that individual departmental programmes contribute to the greatest degree possible to broadband roll-out in the UK, while also ensuring that the Departments are provided with value-for-money services that are consistent with the targets and timetables which they have set. The regional developmental agencies will be involved as well, and a project board will direct day-to-day running. I can announce the appointment this week of a director for broadband in the Department of Trade and Industry,
  448
  who will be delivering on an important recommendation that was made to us by the Broadband Stakeholder Group in its most recent report.
  We have quite a short window of opportunity given the imminence of substantial public sector investments in broadband. We need to establish the balance of demand aggregation between national and regional levels, and set up structures to carry out aggregation and procurement in an efficient way. The project will play a big part in extending broadband availability for public sector use throughout the country. To answer the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) specifically, we shall be ensuring that the infrastructure investment being delivered will make broadband more widely available. That is available to small and medium-sized enterprises and others in areas where broadband has not been available until now, so giving a major boost to the economy in rural areas in particular.
  Mr. Robert Key: Will the Minister kindly tell us who is to be the director of broadband? Will it be a career civil servant or someone from the private sector?
  Mr. Timms: It will be a career civil servant from the Department of Trade and Industry.
  An interesting example is provided by what has been happening in the west midlands. Advantage West Midlands, the regional development agency, spotted that in its area the contracts for two broadband networks—both of them were in the education network—were up for renewal this summer. One of the networks is serving all the schools in the region and the other is serving all the universities. By bringing both networks into a single contract, it will be possible to offer all the users greater functionality for the same price. After that, the intention is to open up the infrastructure to users outside the public sector—for example, to provide the backhaul into the telecommunications network for wireless broadband initiatives serving rural areas. Final contract negotiations are taking place with a company, Synetrix, and the preferred telecommunications supplier will be the cable company Telewest. Once they have their infrastructure in place, other users outside the public sector will be able to take advantage of the system as well.
  Lawrie Quinn: Is it not the case that the flexibility of the project that my hoa. Friend has outlined underpins the development of broadband in Britain? When his group is looking for good quality examples throughout the country, will it make particular reference to the mobile set-up that has been brought forward by the Discovery project of North Yorkshire county council, which goes out to some of the most rural and isolated parts of the county, including my constituency, and affords the linkages while debunking some of the myths about the so-called digital divide?
  Mr. Timms: That sounds like a welcome initiative. There is much work to be done in communicating the benefits of the technology and ensuring that business users and other users understand them.
  It is sometimes suggested that we need a generalised subsidy to make broadband happen in the UK. I do not agree with that. That is not the way to get a competitive

  449
  and sustainable broadband market throughout the country. I think that we shall see, through competition between the service providers, the momentum that will drive the roll-out that we need. However, there will be cases where the market will not deliver and targeted support may well be needed. Where the lack of broadband availability is a limiting factor in economic regeneration, that can be a justification for using existing funds for regional economic development. The RDAs have £1.8 billion at their disposal in the coming year. We have seen the success of that approach in Cornwall's ACT NOW project, which I mentioned, which draws also on European Union funding.
  Companies are coming forward with proposals to address these issues while recognising that we need to achieve a competitive outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to the work that BT has done in coming forward with five models, building on its experience with ACT NOW, which are applied to other circumstances and allowing for open tendering so that other operators can bid for contracts as well. These models have merit as a general framework for a partnership approach to developing broadband schemes that maximise the prospects for competition in the supply of broadband for areas where there is now none.
  Mr. Drew: I appreciate the Minister giving way again—he has been characteristically generous with his time. Does he accept that there is a difficulty in rural areas, where community campaigns do not regard ADSL as a solution, usually on economic grounds? As he knows, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking evidence on this topic at the moment, and we were impressed by the campaign to bring broadband to Blewbury, which has gone for a wireless solution. If people go for a solution other than ADSL, people who join up need to be aware that ADSL is not going to come in afterwards and sweep away the investment that has been put in. I should therefore be grateful if my hon. Friend would comment on the need to guarantee that communities that are looking for innovative solutions will not have their legs cut away from under them afterwards.
  Mr. Timms: I am glad to do so. Let me give my hon. Friend an example from Oakham, the county town of Rutland, where in March I visited Rutland Online, which employs 15 people. It started six years ago by hosting websites and providing e-commerce solutions for businesses in the area, but broadband has become an increasingly major part of what it is doing. There is no broadband service at all in Oakham today, but in the next few months three separate broadband services will be established. An operator called Independent Networks is taking orders and will use local loop unbundling to provide the first broadband service in the area. On 21 May, BT expects to upgrade its local exchange for ADSL, the registration trigger threshold having been reached. Later on, Rutland Online will establish a wireless broadband service with which it expects to be able to support 60 small and medium-sized enterprise users. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that the fact that by that time there will be two other broadband services in the area is not deterring
  450
  Rutland Online from introducing the wireless service as well. There is therefore potential for wireless and other solutions to coexist.
  The main obstacle to the provision of more affordable broadband in rural areas concerns the fact that the initial investment required to provide broadband by any technology other than satellite is expected to obtain a slower return in rural areas, where there are fewer people within a given distance and where the cost of backhaul is likely to be greater than in areas of high population density. The so-called backhaul issue—the cost of connecting a local exchange or a new wireless base station to the core network—is a major barrier to the extension of broadband to rural areas. Rutland Online, for example, told me that of the £90,000 cost of providing a service for two years backhaul will account for £50,000. However, there are ways forward, including alternative technologies which can do the job more cheaply and, in particular, realise the potential of plans for public sector broadband connectivity in the way in which I have described. In the west midlands, it is envisaged that the network that I described could be used to provide backhaul for wireless broadband services in rural areas. That is an important part of the solution for rural areas.
  ADSL, of course, is not the only solution, although it will be available to a substantial proportion of the rural population in time. We have talked about satellite, and there are schemes to help small and medium-sized enterprises gain access to satellite broadband, including the remote area broadband inclusion trial or RABBIT initiative, and other satellite schemes such as those led by the south-east RDA and Yorkshire Forward. Over 1,000 small rural firms across the country have benefited from those schemes so far, with the provision of funding towards the cost of a satellite connection. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has drawn attention to the importance of wireless, and there are already pilot projects such as those in Alston and Hawkshead in Cumbria and Tendring in Essex which use wireless technology to get broadband to residents and SMEs. I am sure that we will hear of other examples in our debate. I hope that the imminent auction of 3.4 GHz wireless licences will help to spread wireless broadband a lot further.
  I should like to draw attention to an imaginative development that has taken place since the launch of the Alston Cybermoor project in Cumbria 18 months ago. With public financial support to help get the project going, it addressed issues of economic regeneration, lifelong learning and access to electronic Government services. It has been successful, and has achieved over 300 local connections and five public access points, but now faces the problem of how to keep going. Local residents have taken the initiative by adopting a social enterprise model, and have registered as a co-operative that other residents can join and help to develop. They have mutualised the public sector investment, and other communities could benefit from looking carefully at that example.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) talked about what has been happening in Canada. On a recent visit there, I met someone who was concerned about the steady economic decline of his rural community and had set up a not-for-profit organisation to roll out a fixed wireless

  451
  broadband network, providing affordable broadband access to homes and businesses in the region. That service is now serving a community of 100,000 residents. A social enterprise and co-operative model may well be the way forward for areas in the UK as well.
  Brian White: One problem is the availability of skills so that people can provide those services. While the learning and skills councils often concentrate on people who need basic skills, there is not much support for people who need medium skills that would allow those companies to develop. Will my hon. Friend address that issue?
  Mr. Timms: I know that my hon. Friend welcomed very much the launch of e-skills UK on 8 April. He is right about the need to focus on those technical skills, which is a high priority for us. When the Government publish the skills strategy on which the DTI is working with the Department for Education and Skills and other Departments, he will see that intermediate technical skills are of particular importance to it.
  Another interesting possibility is the use of the electricity infrastructure for broadband, with the so-called Powerline technology for delivering broadband along ordinary electricity cables. Some of the £30 million UK broadband fund has been used on projects in Crieff and Campbeltown on trials of that technology, and other projects are planned in Stonehaven and Winchester, the results of which will be interesting.
  Mr. Chris Mole: While my hon. Friend is holding forth on the range of different technologies that can deliver broadband, will he turn his attention to the future prospects of broadband? I entirely accept that some Members are frustrated that their communities cannot even receive ADSL, but it will be important for the UK to ensure that as the widespread delivery of even higher band widths becomes increasingly economic we begin to ensure that people have the skills to deliver to the user products and services that will take advantage of 10 megabytes and higher speeds.
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the fact that in due course we will need to do a great deal of further work on the capacity and availability of much higher speed networks. Whereas 93 per cent. of public libraries have broadband at 2 megabytes a second or more, Middlesbrough libraries are adopting a broadband capacity of 2 gigabytes a second. Undoubtedly, we will need to address that much more widely in due course.
  I shall work closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of broadband. Together with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we are collecting information on current projects and best practice in rural areas. The Countryside Agency has commissioned research, due to report this month, which looks at best practice in a number of projects. Research has been carried out on evidence of the use of broadband to increase productivity of businesses in rural areas, which account for a third of UK small businesses.
  452
  The challenge of broadband is an important economic challenge for the UK. Delivering broadband will be an important step towards improving public services, raising productivity and promoting inclusion, and it is important that in due course every part of the country should be able to benefit and not just a few.
  I hope that I have reassured the House today that we have made good progress, but that the Government are determined to address the significant challenges that remain, and to maintain and build on the rate of progress that we have seen over the past year, so that the rich promise of broadband Britain can be fulfilled.
  2.10 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I was interested in the Minister's speech and in his announcement about the director of broadband. That is a positive development, although we urge the Government to go further.
  If I may say so, to hold the debate today is perverse. The topic is enormously important, as the Minister rightly said. It is especially important for rural areas that cannot get access to broadband, whereas urban areas generally find it easier to get access. The Minister will know of the Country Land and Business Association's campaign on rural access to broadband. However, almost all rural Members are currently in their constituencies supporting their local candidates, so we are left with a few hon. Members present, including one or two from rural areas. I am not sure whether Milton Keynes counts as rural, but let us assume so.
  Brian White indicated assent.
  Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—who led a debate on 25 March—and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), both of whom were particularly keen to be present for the debate, have had to apologise because they had to go back to their constituencies.
  Lawrie Quinn: My area, which is England's largest rural county, North Yorkshire, is, as I said in my earlier intervention, making a considerable impact in delivering broadband to rural areas. The experiments in e-enablement of the electoral process allow hon. Members present today to vote via the internet or other mechanisms. That is reaching all parts of the country.
  Mr. Robathan: Yes, but I am sure local govt candidates in the hon Gentleman's Labour association would have been pleased to see him in person, rather than in e-form.[Interruption.] It is suggested that the hon. Gentleman's e-form is better than his person, but I would not dream of commenting on that. Personally, I voted by post a couple of weeks ago.
  In the circumstances, the debate is a bit of a filler. I am sorry about that. It should be an important debate that is well attended, but sadly it is not. The Order Paper states that the First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee is of particular relevance, yet I note that there is certainly not a single Conservative MP from Wales in the Chamber, nor are there any MPs from Wales from any other party. Also, I regret that the debate will be interrupted by the important statement on Northern Ireland.

  453
  The importance of broadband is that it gives us the potential to change our lives and the way that we work, and it is doing so. The information highway—the internet—has been compared to railways in the 19th century and roads in the 20th century. It is of enormous importance to communications. E-commerce has arrived and is having an impact. Politicians should be cautious about being too visionary in their claims on technical matters, or too reactionary. Business men should also avoid being reactionary. Only three years ago, the then chairman of BT, lain Vallance, said that he saw no market for residential broadband. When I heard that, it reminded me of politicians between the first and second world wars who extolled the virtues of mounted cavalry in preference to noisy and smelly tanks.
  It was the business of the chairman of BT to have a little vision, and politicians can assist in that where necessary, but we should beware of technical aspects, especially if we are not qualified. The Minister is extremely well qualified. He wrote a book on broadband back in the 1980s, before most of us had even heard of it. I trust that he is using his knowledge to assist in its development. I confess that I come to the debate with an O-level in physics with chemistry from 1966, but neither we, nor our constituents, need technical qualifications or detailed knowledge to understand the concepts and benefits that the technology can bring us. It is for others to explain the technology to those of us—I see one or two others in the Chamber—who may need it explained from time to time.
  I applaud the Government's stated target, which could be called a vision, of having the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. We support that, although I am not entirely sure whether it will come about. In my speech, I shall discuss the importance of broadband, what the Government and the public sector can do, what the role of competition and private enterprise should be, and possible future developments.
  E-commerce is changing business, almost to the extent that the industrial revolution did 250 years ago. Laymen like my self use Amazon, Sainsbury's to you, and Tesco.com. E-commerce is entering every nook and cranny of business, and every aspect of business can benefit from it. It can benefit plumbers to pharmaceutical giants. Businesses are using the internet, and they want to use broadband. The information society is also benefiting all public services, which can only improve as a result. It is changing the way in which people communicate with their friends and access information at home. We all accept that the rapid introduction of broadband is important for the UK, and we support the Government in that.
  My access to the internet on the House of Commons network, which of course is broadband—Demon, I think—is almost instantaneous. I contrast that with my experience at home in Lutterworth in my constituency, where I spend hours waiting for it to dial up and then get cut off after about two minutes, which is rather trying.
  Although we may all agree on the targets and benefits, we note that the strategy is not yet working as we would wish. The Minister touched on that. Ministers want broadband to be accessible to all parts of the country,
  454
  yet terrestrial broadband is still unavailable to one third of the UK's 24 million households, including two out of five suburban households. In rural areas, as we know, access is patchy. We want diversification in the rural economy. The Minister mentioned speaking to the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life, which is important. Areas such as mine—and those of all my hon. Friends in the Chamber and some on the Government Benches—where farming is in the doldrums have many small businesses, which need fast, cheap and easy access to the information highway.
  Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. Given his broad welcome for the project, can he confirm that the £30 million that the Government have allocated to regional development agencies to develop broadband access, particularly in rural areas, would be continued and developed further by his party?
  Mr. Paice: That was a one-off.
  Mr. Robathan: Indeed. Moreover, I wonder whether the £30 million could be better spent. I shall deal with that in detail and answer the hon. Gentleman, but I should prefer to do it in my own order than in his.
  Mr. Drew: I emphasise a different point that has been made by several of us. The issue is not just giving people access, but the follow-up afterwards. Whenever I speak to BT, the biggest criticism is of the amount at which it has set its trigger level, which could be seen as an unfair system, but it is the one that we have. What follows or does not follow is not taking the broadband revolution forward as quickly as it might. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
  Mr. Robathan: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman thinks should follow.
  Mr. Drew: There is a lack of follow-up. People who get on to the trigger list do not see it through. That is galling, because it means that the process is not being taken forward.
  Mr. Robathan: I understand now what the hon. Gentleman means; that having registered, people do not take up their registration at a later date. I put that down to consumer choice. BT is willing to enable an exchange at what it says is half the likely return that it will receive, because it believes that that will grow. I am sure that BT is right.
  Britain has little more than a quarter of the number of broadband connections per head of population of Sweden, and we lag woefully behind Japan and Germany. Measured against the Government target, we are sixth among the G7 countries, ahead only of Italy.

  455
  We are also behind countries such as Iceland and Portugal. The Minister may be about to tell me that that situation has changed in the last week.
  Mr. Timms: Those figures will be reassessed in the course of the next few weeks and I am confident that the new ones will tell a rather happier tale than the one that the hon. Gentleman is relating.
  Mr. Robathan: We will welcome that. We led the way in narrowband internet access, mobile telephony and digital television.
  Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should follow Germany's example where the incumbent, Deutsche Telekom, put in DSL to prevent competition when it had to divest itself of its cable companies?
  Mr. Robathan: I did not say that or suggest it. The hon. Gentleman will know that Deutsche Telekom has its own serious commercial problems, partly caused by its investment in DSL.
  I come now to the Government's role and how the public sector can assist. I was interested in what the Minister said about how public sector enablement will help us. Technical improvements are moving faster than Government legislation or regulation, or bureaucratic minds, possibly can. Nevertheless, there is a big role to be played in creating the environment in which broadband can be accessed easily throughout the UK. The situation is improving, so I do not knock the Government.
  On 20 March my exchange in Lutterworth still had a few to go to reach the trigger mechanism, but in May we should be enabled, and the local Member of Parliament is expected to be asked to inaugurate—or whatever one does—the exchange. Throughout Britain more exchanges are being enabled. I understand that under the trigger mechanism, 59 have been enabled, making a total of 1,182 BT exchanges, and more than 300 rural exchanges have reached the trigger levels.
  Mr. Garnier: I am interested to hear about my hon. Friend's experience in Lutterworth, which is about 40 miles from my area. The Lutterworth exchange will presumably serve between 15,000 and 20,000 inhabitants, not only within the town itself but within the wider area. I am concerned about the smaller hamlets that are desperate to get on to broadband but which do not have the populations to justify the sort of registration that he has been talking about.
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. and learned Friend is right to be concerned about smaller hamlets and isolated farmhouses where there may have been diversification or where it is simply the farm business that requires broadband.
  To be fair to BT, it is reacting well. Since Sir Iain Vallances extraordinary comments about residential broadband, BT has been pushing things forward. The Government are also committed to connecting public services, about which we have heard. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said—I hope that he will explain further when he replies to the debate—the Government
  456
  have gone somewhat awry. In my constituency, schools are being enabled. For example, Sherrier primary school in my home town of Lutterworth has broadband. I thought that it had a midband speed, but the Minister tells me that it has over 1 megabyte. Why should not that school have brought broadband access to the whole of Lutterworth? That would seem the obvious way to go. Sherrier and other primary schools have obtained access through the East Midlands Broadband Consortium. Similarly, Sapcote library has a connection, but through the People's Network, which I believe the NHS uses as well. The library has broadband, but at the Sapcote exchange, which has a trigger of 350 connections, only 212 have registered so far, so it will have to wait.
  BT and others tell me that aggregated public sector demand, which often uses the BT network but private dedicated lines, could pull all that broadband demand through to the private sector and to all homes. Will the Minister clarify that? I am still not entirely clear about whether those private dedicated lines can be used as a backhaul to bring broadband to every home in an area.
  Mr. Timms: I shall be happy to explain further what I had in mind when I reply, but once the infrastructure has been provided to meet the public sector commitments, it is available to other users as well; for example, to provide backhaul from a local wireless broadband service, if that is a way of meeting the needs of a particular community. I should also add that the 2 megabyte per second two-way target for primary schools is for 2006. I am not saying that every primary school has that at the moment. That certainly is not yet the case.
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the Minister for that. He has an enormous knowledge on which many of us rely.
  The roll-out is fairly slow. The schools completion will not be until 2006. As the Minister has now told us, some of the connection is only midband. When Sapcote library—sitting on its midband—and perhaps Sherrier primary school are surrounded by an enabled exchange, the residential houses on either side will have 512 kilobytes whereas the library and the school will, as I understand it, still have a slower midband connection.
  Mr. Mole: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robathan: I will, but it will be for the last time because I wish to sit clown shortly after 2.30 pm because of the extremely important Northern Ireland statement.
  Mr. Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the UK online access in particular that can be obtained through public libraries is an important part of creating public awareness about the capabilities of broadband, and that the Government are entirely right to promote such facilities, because if people see the benefits for their home or business, it will lead them to register, showing service providers such as BT that the demand exists?
  Mr. Robathan: I agree up to a point that it is valuable for libraries to have broadband but perhaps—funnily enough, the Government are coming around to this with the appointment of a director of broadband—that could be done in a slightly different way to allow access for residential and business users.

  457
  The private sector is usually of greater importance than the public sector in developments such as this, and I think that the private sector will drive this matter. It has been suggested that the DTI is obsessed with competition in the roll-out of broadband, although I do not necessarily agree with that. I tend to the view of others in the industry who suggest that competition is driving development, technology and access. However, the Government should take a pragmatic view and consider what they want to achieve with their investment. The present competitive and dynamic market has been largely achieved by private investment.
  We are already the most competitive in the EU and to that extent the Government's policy on driving competition has been right. We have already heard about the number of connections; 1 million cable connections were announced yesterday in a press release from Telewest and NTL. Interestingly, BT tells me that it has only 22.6 per cent. of the share of the retail broadband market because over half is on cable. It has 51 per cent. of the retail DSL market, 49 per cent. going to other internet service providers. I applaud that and I congratulate cable providers. I also congratulate BT, which is striving to increase its share of the market. It would be churlish of me not to do so, as I received from it in today's post an invitation to the CBI annual dinner. I do not think that that involves a registrable interest, but I do not want to be rude to my hosts.
  We want the Government to create conditions in which the broadband market can thrive. I reiterate that we are not sure that all investment in the public sector is currently being made along the right lines. A £30 million grant has been made available to RDAs, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) mentioned. I am not sure whether that is the right approach. My RDA, the East Midlands Development Agency, is very good at producing big, glossy documents such as the one that I am holding, which is the second copy that it has sent me; it obviously knew that I put the first copy in the bin, where I will put this one. It is a very glossy document featuring nice pictures of lambs and flowers, but it does not set out much action.
  EMDA plans to use its share of the £30 million on a wired-up communities competition that will take three years to come to fruition. As we have heard, this is a very fast-moving field and we would not expect the situation to be the same in three years' time. Indeed, more than 30,000 new broadband connections are made every week. None the less, the same RDA blames the lack of
  458
  vision in providing broadband services to rural areas on the slowdown in the international IT industry and the money spent by mobile phone companies on the 3G auction. Anybody who has seen the RDAs at work knows that they are not likely to drive fast broadband roll-out.
  I wish to speak briefly about the future before I sit down to allow the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to speak. As I said, we should beware of being too visionary about technical matters. Of course, "broadband" is a somewhat amorphous and imprecise term anyway and is used in respect of anything between 100 kilobytes and several megabytes, as I understand it.
  Higher bandwidth will be offered, largely because of competition. The process is a continuing one and is increasingly sophisticated. People are investigating compression technology, which could allow fibre-optic cable to be laid from every exchange to the remote concentrating units. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) finds this so funny; perhaps he would like to give us a digression about remote concentrating units, which are situated at the end of every street and in villages. The Government need to be flexible and enabling, and not dirigiste and controlling.
  A particular proposal that has been raised with me relates to something called wi-fi. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, North knows a lot about wi-fi, which would use wireless standard 802.11. The Minister might like to mention the proposal, which I understand could lead to a system that would not require the digging up of roads but would not be entirely wireless, as it could be provided through wires to small, remote communities.
  I note that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is waiting to speak and I shall conclude my remarks. Although broadband has not been on the lips of everybody to whom I have spoken on the doorsteps of Lutterworth and elsewhere during canvassing for the local elections, which is what most hon. Members are doing now, I suspect that it should be. It is an enormously important issue—
  David Maclean: In Penrith.
  Mr. Robathan: As my right hon. Friend says, broadband is enormously important in Penrith as well as elsewhere. We hope to address it further and to see more of it, and I hope that the Government will be able to answer one or two of the questions that I have asked in my brief speech. We now look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland
  2.34 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): With permission, and with thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I intend that this should be only a brief statement, but I propose, again with the permission of the House, to return to the House next week to speak at greater length about the issues involved and to allow Northern Ireland Members in particular, but other hon. Members too, to participate fully in respect of such a statement.
  We have, with the Irish Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland, made a great deal of progress since the institutions were suspended in October 2002 towards restoring devolved government on a stable footing and completing the process of implementing the Belfast agreement. We have made it clear throughout those discussions, however, that in order to do so, it was essential to complete the permanent transition to exclusively peaceful means in Northern Ireland politics.
  A very substantial set of proposals has been discussed by the two Governments with the political parties and broadly accepted by them setting out what acts of completion would involve. They include a joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments setting out how we would secure full implementation of the Belfast agreement, with detailed annexes on security normalisation, devolution of policing and justice and human rights, equality and identity. There is also an agreement between the two Governments on how future adherence by all parties and the Governments to the commitments set out in the agreement and joint declaration would be monitored and arrangements for remedying breaches of those commitments. Finally, there is a scheme for the handling of the cases of those on the run for terrorist offences.
  We have also received a statement from the IRA about acts of completion, but despite the intensive efforts by the leadership of Sinn Fein to clarify the key points, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity on the crucial issue of whether the IRA is prepared for a full, immediate and permanent cessation of all paramilitary activity, including military attacks, training, targeting, intelligence gathering, acquisition or development of arms or weapons, other preparations for terrorist campaigns, punishment beatings and attacks and involvement in riots. Without clarity here, we will not be able to build the trust that is necessary to restore devolved government.
  We have concluded that this issue cannot be resolved during an election campaign. We have therefore concluded that we should postpone the elections until the autumn to provide more time to rebuild the trust that will allow the restoration of the institutions based on the agreement and its full implementation.
  We have not so far published our proposals because they were part of a whole package that would also have included clear statements on exclusively peaceful means, but we believe that in the interest of proper public debate, we should now make them available. We shall publish the proposals this afternoon and call on the IRA to publish its statement. We, for our part, will go ahead
  460
  and implement as much of the joint declaration as we can, where that is not conditional on clear and definitive acts of completion. Copies of the joint declaration will be placed in the Library of the House.
  The Prime Minister is speaking this afternoon about this issue and he go to Dublin next week to discuss the next steps with the Taoiseach. I understand that there will be a strong wish in the House to discuss these issues once hon. Members have read the Government proposals. As I said. I therefore propose to make a fuller statement to the House next week, and a Bill for the postponement of the elections will follow shortly afterwards. But I believed that it was essential to give the earliest possible notice to the House of our intention that elections should be postponed, and that is why we are making the announcement here today.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I thank the Secretary,of State for his courtesy in giving me a brief oral summary of the decision that the Government had reached a few moments ago. May I say how much I regret that the Prime Minister has apparently decided to make a statement at the same time to the press in Downing street? That shows where his priorities lie, and he has relied upon his colleague, the Secretary of State, to come and deal with the House of Commons, where the awkward questions are likely to be asked. We will all draw our own conclusions from that.
  It is known in this House, and I repeat it today, that we thoroughly support the robust attitude of the Government in demanding full clarification on the three vital matters from Sinn Fein-IRA, and we shall continue to support them on that for as long as they remain equally robust. However, the Secretary of State will understand if I say that I will not comment on the two documents, the joint Governments' declaration and the IRA's declaration, until I have seen them. It is welcome that we will see them shortly—I gather that they are to be published this afternoon—and we look forward to commenting on Tuesday.
  The main burden of what the Secretary of State said is dramatic. It is that despite the fact that the Government came to the House at the beginning of March to ask, exceptionally, for a month's extension of the date of the Assembly elections from 1 May to 29 May, now, six weeks later, they are saying that they want to suspend the elections again. Will the Government be absolutely clear about whether that suspension will be to a new named day or open-ended—sine die—so that the Secretary of State can act whenever he feels like it? That absolutely vital element was left out of the Secretary of State's comments, and it is impossible without it to evaluate his proposal.
  Sadly, once again in Northern Ireland, the Government have shown that they do not take their own constitutional rules seriously and that devolution does not benefit from any objective constitutional framework, but is merely the plaything of the Government; whenever they feel like it, they can simply intervene from on high to change the rules to delay elections or to do a s they please. Is not that deeply damaging to the credibility of devolution and to the institutions in Northern Ireland?
  What the Government have done is to say that democracy is suspended for everyone in Northern Ireland—for all parties and all citizens—just because

  461
  one party has misbehaved or has not fulfilled its obligations under the Belfast agreement. That is one more deplorable example—we have had them before, including at the time of suspension—of the innocent being penalised, not just the guilty. Is not that a perverse signal to send at a time when we are trying to build a new peaceful and democratic Northern Ireland?
  Will the Secretary of State agree that again, for the umpteenth time, what appeared to be a set deadline in the peace process has been opportunistically shifted by the Government at the last minute, after their characteristic period of several days' shilly-shallying and vacillation, and as they see fit? That is deplorable. No peace process can be successful unless deadlines are taken seriously, yet once again, the Government have shown that they are not to be taken seriously. Is not that very damaging to the peace process?
  The Secretary of State said that he thought that it was impossible to conclude an agreement during an election campaign. However, the Government foresaw exactly the circumstances that would arise when they came here in March, after Hillsborough, and said that it was sensible to set a date of 29 May and that the negotiations with all the parties to consummate the Hillsborough agreement would take place against that background. Once more, there has been a U-turn by the Government. Is that not a self-condemnation by the Government—an admission that as recently as March their judgment was clearly wrong? Might not one factor that inhibits parties from going the last mile in any negotiation on such a peace process be an impending election? There are two reasons for that: first, the need to appear tough to one's own electorate before the election makes it difficult to make concessions of any kind; and secondly, parties may feel that they need to know what the concatenation of political forces in the Assembly will be in a few weeks' time before they can say, "Right, we will put all our cards on the table." The fact that a different combination of political forces may emerge after an election inclines people to keep same of their cards in their pockets. The uncertainty surrounding an election having not happened is an inhibiting factor in concluding the process. It is therefore doubly regrettable that the uncertainty has now been continued and prolonged, perhaps indefinitely—sine die—although we do not know that, because the Secretary of State has not told us.
  What indication does the Secretary of State have that there will be any difference at all in the circumstances if the election is postponed to later this summer, to the autumn or to any other time? What circumstances does he expect to change in the meantime that give him some hope that there will not be a third, fourth or fifth retrospective postponement?
  The final date by which nominations for Assembly elections on 29 May had to be in was Tuesday, which means that the Secretary of State has produced complete chaos in Northern Ireland. People who want to observe the law as it currently stands, and who want to take part in a democratic election, as they are entitled to, have to get their nomination papers in by Tuesday. Do they still have to get their nomination papers in by Tuesday? Or are the Government saying, "Because we have a 200 majority in this House we can do anything—
  462
  we can roll over Parliament and simply change the dates retrospectively whenever we feel like it, so don't bother to put your nomination papers in"? Which is it? Perhaps the Secretary of State will answer that, because people require guidance before Tuesday. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) cannot intervene on a question.
  Mr. Davies: The candidates are entitled to an explanation before Tuesday, because they have to decide before then whether they are going to put their nomination papers in.
  Can the Secretary of State cite a single instance in the past 100 years in any democratic country where the constitutional rules for an elected assembly have been treated with such levity—such contemptuous frivolity? How can the Government expect the people of Northern Ireland to take seriously the new institutions in Northern Ireland, to which we are very committed, if they take those institutions and the rules behind them so unseriously themselves?
  Three things come out of this with their credibility very gravely damaged: first, the peace process; secondly, the institutions of devolved government, and the basis of democracy, in Northern Ireland; and thirdly, the Government themselves.
  Mr. Murphy: On nominations, we cannot as a Government anticipate what the House of Commons or the House of Lords will do, but it would still be sensible for parties in Northern Ireland very much to take into account my announcement that elections in Northern Ireland, if Parliament so agrees, will be postponed. I think that parties in Northern Ireland will understand that.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not think for one second that I, or the Government, wanted to have elections deferred until the autumn. It was the last thing that I wanted. What does he think that we have all been doing for the six or seven months since I became Secretary of State last October? Virtually every day of every week of every month has been taken up with trying to ensure that we have a joint declaration. What does he think that I was doing from 1997 to 1998, when I chaired the strand 1 talks in Northern Ireland that set up the institution of the Assembly? Does he not understand that the whole basis upon which the Assembly in Belfast is created is very special? He says that this would not happen in any other country, but no other country has such an Assembly. No other country has this type of agreement, which was based on a subtle and important compromise that made sure that both sides of the community—Unionist and nationalist—could sit together in an Assembly in Northern Ireland in a very special way.
  On the date of the election—I do not yet know precisely what is in the Bill; we shall see when it is published—I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we want it to be in the autumn. If he cannot understand that the whole basis of the restoration of the Assembly is the restoration of trust between the Unionist and nationalist Members of the Legislative Assembly, he seriously misunderstands the whole basis of the Good Friday agreement.

  463
  I shall repeat the reasons for having to make a difficult decision. First, there is lack of clarity from the Irish Republican Army about whether there will be an end to paramilitary activity. Secondly, that means that trust and confidence has not been restored. Time and again, I have told hon. Members that we can restore the institutions only if we restore trust and confidence between parties in Northern Ireland. Clearly, that has not happened. If we went ahead and elected an Assembly, what would we have? It would be like electing a Parliament with no guarantee that we could produce a Government. That is not a stable way in which to proceed.
  We are not giving up and we shall ensure that the elections will go ahead, but later. In the meantime, we shall keep on talking. We shall try to resolve issues so that we can restore the necessary trust and confidence. The all-important point is not whether the date of the election is in autumn or spring, but that the process continues.
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Minister of State for giving me a brief indication of the statement's content. It is regrettable that matters have been organised in such a way that the normal courtesies of advance notice of statements could not be observed.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's comment that the joint declaration will be published and placed in the Library. Like the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), Liberal Democrat Members regret the decision to delay the elections from 29 May. We believe that democracy delayed is democracy defeated and we cannot be party to that.
  The delay is especially regrettable because it places control of the democratic process in the hands of people to whom it is anathema. Responsibility for the delay lies fairly and squarely with Sinn Fein and the IRA. They have been asked to make a straightforward choice between violence and democracy and they have been unable to make it. Surely the time has come for the democratic process in Northern Ireland to move on. If Sinn Fein and the IRA cannot move with it, that is their choice and the people of Northern Ireland will judge them on it.
  When the Secretary of State introduced the previous legislation at the beginning of March to delay the elections until 29 May, Liberal Democrat Members said that we would support him then but that we would support no further delays. That remains our position. Like Conservative Members, we shall wait and see the contents of the Bill, but I foresee no circumstances in which we would support it.
  Will the Secretary of State clarify his response to the point that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford made about the nomination process? It should continue in the absence of legislation to the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman knows that democracy comes at a price. Many parties and individuals in Northern Ireland have already committed and incurred expenditure in the legitimate expectation that elections would proceed on 29 May. Will the Government seriously consider a mechanism for compensating those
  464
  parties? The Government and the Opposition in this House take such funding for granted, but it is not easily available to parties in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Murphy: I regret the postponement of elections until the autumn as much as the hon. Gentleman. I deeply regret it, as I said to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. I agree that we could not observe the normal courtesies as much as we would have liked. However, in fluid negotiations yesterday and today, I was conscious of wanting to ensure that the House of Commons was told about the announcement. I therefore had to decide whether to make an announcement this afternoon or go through the normal procedure of giving longer notice to political parties. Clearly, it is important for my colleagues and Ito speak not only to the parties in Great Britain but those in Northern Ireland. I needed to speak to the leaders of those parties.
  I have little to add to my reasons for believing that the elections should be postponed until the autumn. However, the Government will certainly consider compensation.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should put only one question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It should be borne in mind that we have interrupted a debate and that a fuller statement will be made when we return next week.
  Andrew Mackinlay: In February, we had only one day of debate on the legislation to postpone elections. I appreciate that the matter must be tackled with dispatch, but may we have at least two days for the forthcoming Bill, because it will be more complicated than the legislation that we passed in February? For example, we should consider the 200 members of Assembly staff—the employees of Members of the Legislative Assembly—who will presumably receive redundancy notices. We must consider what happens to them in the interregnum.
  When precisely was the Social Democratic and Labour party told about the statement, bearing it in mind that other Northern Ireland business was scheduled for this afternoon?
  Mr. Murphy: On the final point, contacts have been made with the SDLP, but the nature of the negotiations in the past 24 hours and the fact that members of political parties in Northern Ireland are campaigning mean that one would not expect Northern Ireland Members to be able to get to the Chamber for the statement. That is why I propose to make another statement next week.
  Andrew Mackinlay: There is a debate in Westminster Hall.
  Mr. Murphy: That is not a matter for me. I understand why Northern Ireland Members could not be present today to listen to the statement. It is therefore important to make another.

  465
  The time allocated for the debate on the Bill is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am sure that he listened to my hon. Friend's comments.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I made the point earlier, and I want to make it plain that I received the first intimation, apart from speculation in this morning's press, of these matters at 12.15 pm through a press notice. I raised the matter on a point of order. Business questions did not start until 12.30 pm and I regret that the seamless robe of Government did not mean that the Leader of the House was apprised of matters. I appreciate that he was frank and open with us when he made his first response.
  Why could Dublin Ministers announce the business of this House before we were given information? I cannot accept the explanation of courtesy because the harsh reality is that although others were consulted, albeit orally, as an Ulster Unionist Member who is present today, I knew nothing about what was happening until I received the information from outside sources.
  Mr. Murphy: Whatever might have been anticipated or speculated upon elsewhere, the Government announced the postponement of elections here at 2.30 pm. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will announce it afterwards. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that negotiations have been fluid yesterday and throughout the morning. I repeat that the official announcement of the matter is to the House of Commons and by the Prime Minister after my statement.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is overcome by the extent and warmth of the constructive comments of the official Opposition. They demonstrate the extent of their commitment to the Good Friday agreement.
  In many parts of these islands, today's statement will be perceived as a victory for the Unionist veto. May I urge my right hon. Friend to resist the temptation to set a date in autumn? We want progress, not programmes and trust, not timetables.
  Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right about the trust that is required to establish the institutions.
  The Opposition referred to the Sinn Fein veto, whereas my hon. Friend referred to a Unionist veto. Everyone has a veto in the Northern Ireland peace process. We must establish trust and confidence between parties so that we can go ahead with an institution that has the confidence of the Unionist and nationalist community.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Why does not the Secretary of State confess today that he was not going to come to the House to make a statement at this time but was going to make one next week? The reason why we are here today is that the Minister for Justice of a foreign country announced to journalists in Dublin that the election was to be suspended. That is why the Secretary of State has come here in such great haste.
  466
  Can the Secretary of State confirm that legally at this moment the elections are on? He needs to change the law to bring about what he is about to do. According to legal advice that I have and according to the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland, the nominations tomorrow are on. If a Member who has spent considerable funds on preparing for the election—for example, on printing—is to make a legal claim to obtain reimbursement of those funds, he must prove that he has been a candidate, so all my party members will be nominating tomorrow and all the party members of many other parties will be nominating tomorrow. They can do nothing else. We have to keep to the law and the law says, "You have no claim unless you have been nominated." What will the Secretary of State do about that?
  I very much regret that it is Members who do not represent Northern Ireland at all who have time to put their case in this House, whereas we have no time.
  I will sit down on this point: it is an appalling thing that IRA-Sinn Fein have been talking to the Government right up to this morning when the majority Unionist population have been treated like lepers and their leadership has not been consulted in any way. The reason why you do not want an election is that you do not like what is going to happen as a result of that election. That is the difficulty you have.
  Mr. Murphy: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman believes that the statement came as a result of what other people have said, because that is not the case. I decided earlier today to ensure that there would be a more substantial statement next week, precisely so that Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies would be able to come to the House to make their point. I am conscious that, for all sorts of reasons, there are Members elsewhere today and the House is not full, so it is important that that opportunity is given to Members, particularly from Northern Ireland, but I thought that it was important that the decision to postpone the elections should be made and that the decision should be announced in the House of Commons as soon as possible, despite the difficulties that I have just outlined.
  On nominations, it is for the parties themselves to make up their minds. Technically, of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that, at the moment, as the law stands, elections are to be held, but I am announcing today that the Government intend to introduce a Bill to change that.
  Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend make a security assessment? Now that we have a further interregnum, would it be sensible to look at the implications for the British Army in Northern Ireland and ensure that there is an understanding that there will be no further withdrawals? Clearly, we must have at the forefront of our thinking the need to achieve stability in this very difficult situation.
  Mr. Murphy: I will, of course, keep the security situation under constant review—as we always do—on the advice of the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks.
  Mr. Michael Mates: Amid all the recriminations and expressions of horror, perhaps some

  467
  of them more synthetic than real, can we at least all agree on one thing—that the blame for this lies fairly and squarely with Sinn Fein-IRA, who have procrastinated, used weasel words and brought this thing to the brink, hoping that the Government would bend over and meet their demands? As difficult as the Secretary of State's decision was and as regretful as we all recognise he is, he has made the right decision, because an election within a vacuum is not good for democracy.
  Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. He is right that trust is ultimately what is important. That could not be restored, bearing in mind the lack of clarity over that final answer on paramilitary activity. I hope that, over the months ahead in the talks, we can get that clarity.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the Secretary of State reflect more deeply that it is entirely inappropriate for the democratic process of Northern Ireland to be suspended because unreconstructed terrorists remain precisely that, and that it would be appropriate for devolved government to be restored, conducted by those Unionist and nationalist parties that are exclusively committed to the principles and practice of democracy?
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Assembly in Belfast is specifically constituted on the basis of what was agreed by vote among the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. A referendum established that particular type of Assembly, which meant that there had to be Unionists and nationalists agreeing on how to go forward. That is why the Government have decided to postpone.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while this entirely predictable and indeed predicted U-turn reflects badly on the political processes in Northern Ireland, he has made the right decision? May I ask him to reflect on the Bill that he will introduce? Notwithstanding his office and his addressing the House of Commons, there is an election at the end of May until the law of the land is changed. Will he ensure that under that Bill he has power to recompense all the legitimate political parties in Northern Ireland for the legitimate expenses that they incur until the law of the land is changed? Incidentally, as a right hon. Member of the House, I do not appreciate learning from an Irish Minister about the intentions of the Government.
  Mr. Murphy: I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. I am grateful for his support and that of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) for the decision, although all of us regret it. Both of them were Northern Ireland Ministers—indeed the right hon. Gentleman is from Northern Ireland—and understand the difficulties that we face in the peace process. As I said earlier, I will, of course, look at the question of compensation.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I know that the Secretary of State has been striving hard for a just peace in Northern Ireland but we now know that a former
  468
  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred to a known terrorist, Martin McGuinness, as "babe", which surely is an insult 1: 0 the families of constituents who have been murdered by the IRA. Martin McGuinness was on the Provisional IRA council with the blood of British soldiers on his hands. When will the Government abide by their own Belfast agreement? When will they abide by their own deadlines and not give way to the IRA? Cancelling the elections is giving way to the IRA. When will the Government fulfil the Prime Minister's promise to take the weapons and violence out of politics in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Murphy: On the first point, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear the other day that it is not appropriate for Ministers to comment on matters of national security. Alt! I will say is that Mo Mowlam used that phrase to many people, including me.
  On the other matter, the hon. Gentleman will know that I disagree with him. Everything that I have said so far means that I disagree with him, although not on the issues that we face—he and I agree how important it is for the IRA to discontinue any sort of paramilitary activity. As I said earlier, I believe that the best way to solve this problem, particularly in the climate of an election, is to postpone the elections and to sit down and talk through the issues so that we can get better clarity on the very points about which he is concerned.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: Despite the Government's protestations to the contrary, we are all aware of the difficulties with the electoral register in Northern Ireland. If legislation is to be enacted within the next few weeks or days to postpone the elections, will the Secretary of State make it his business to have an urgent meeting with the electoral commissioner and the Electoral Commission and use this intervening period to keep the electoral register open, in order to spend the time clearing up some of the backlog and mess, so that the elections, when they come, will be fairer than they would have been had they been held at the time when they were intended to be held before this morning's announcement was made?
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He has my assurance that we will meet the chief electoral officer and the Electoral Commission to discuss any difficulties that arise not only from the postponement of the elections but with regard to the register, to which he rightly referred.
  Mr. Michael Mates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise briefly a point of order of which I would have liked to give you notice a little earlier. As some hon. Members may know, and as you certainly will know, the debate that was due to take place in Westminster Hall on the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland had to be suspended because of the urgent statement on Northern Ireland. I do not argue with that decision, which was quite right. However, the House should surely have a better mechanism to deal with such events. Could you put in train ways of putting that right? Madam Deputy Speaker had no jurisdiction to suspend that debate until the statement had finished. It would have been sensible and rational if, 40 minutes later, we could have conducted our Westminster Hall

  469
  debate, which, alas, has had to be put off for another day. Parliament has lost a day's debate in Westminster Hall, so I ask you to consider whether a better way could be found of conducting our business.
  Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but I alone do not have the powers to change the rules. Those who do have the power will have heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say and heard that I sympathise with his case.

  Broadband
  Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
  3.11 pm
  Brian White: I welcome the debate, which is important, as the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said. I am the chairman of an organisation that brings together parliamentarians, civil servants, Ministers, the industry and the European informatics group, of which some hon. Members are members. The debate is timely. As an officer of the all-party internet group, I have had discussions with some internet companies, which should be useful for the debate. In common with other hon. Members, I shall also raise some constituency issues.
  Milton Keynes is unusual because most of the rural areas are better off than the urban area. A few weeks ago, I attended the launch of the Olney exchange to enable broadband. In the city of Milton Keynes, 80,000 houses have cable and every exchange is enabled, but many people are unable to receive broadband because of technical difficulties surrounding the installation of cable. To be fair to British Telecom, it is aware of the technical problem and is trying to tackle it. The 80,000 households cannot receive broadband on the cable network because the cable is analogue. NTL is trying to deal with the problem, but views it in financial terms. The city is quite industrialised and many people want broadband, but they are frustrated because they cannot gain access. The problem still exists even where exchanges are enabled.
  I know that the Minister is aware of the problem—I have browbeaten him on several occasions about Abut I want to be fair to NTL and BT, which are trying to deal with it. NTL is carrying out a pilot with the local authority to introduce wireless technology; and this summer it will launch another pilot to get 3,000 households online. The company will use its 10 GHz licence and, with the auction for 3.5 GHz licences corning up this month, it will improve the position further. The regional development agency, local authorities and Government agencies are aware of the problem, but we must ensure that they all work together to tackle problems that go beyond merely getting enough people to register for the exchange.
  Lawrie Quinn: Does not the commercial impediment—the fact that the market could slow down and capital investment be unavailable to the providers—require the sort of stimulus that RDAs have been able to provide through the £30 million grant? Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be sustained in the long term to ensure that the roll-out is more effective and consistent?
  Brian White: I am going to return to the issue of the investment climate for broadband, but my hon. Friend is right about the role that the public sector has to play. The Minister has already spoken about the role of public service aggregation and other such contracts to stimulate the growth of broadband. He also spoke about his experiences in Canada and the MUSH economy, which stands for municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals. He spoke about how Canada

  471
  used investment in those public services to drive the broadband agenda forward. I commend that as an example of good practice.
  When we speak about broadband, we often assume that it is a good thing. However, in the rush to talk about access, we can forget that the case for broadband has to be made. A debate like todays should not pass without stressing that the UK should make the case for broadband to its citizens. As the hon. Member for Blaby pointed out, we are one of the highest narrow band users in the world because of the perceived need to provide the services for it, but we must learn the lessons from it. When narrow band grew, it did so when ISPs provided unmetered online access. We must ensure that broadband learns the same lesson in order to advance.
  Mr. Robathan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was somewhat cut short in my speech. I agree with him about the need for education—it is not entirely a Government responsibility—so that people understand the benefits of broadband. People need to know more about broadband, and this debate may help them.
  Brian White: I agree. UK Online provides a key example of how to educate people about access to Government services and to e-commerce. I give credit to the Department of Trade and Industry for promoting e-commerce, which is critical to progress. Recent research by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, for example, showed a positive link between information and communications technology use and attainment in education.
  I hope that the Minister will reflect on one issue of concern—only about half of computer science graduates are moving into ICT companies, with the rest moving on to companies that use it. The Minister might like to pass the point on to his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills. We need to encourage graduates to work in ICT because it is an area where we have skills shortages.
  My hon. Friends spoke about initiatives for schools— for example, providing money to fund a certain number of megabytes for them. Such facilities are important. As I said in an intervention, we must ensure that we avoid the silo mentality. Several barriers—such as perceived regulatory problems with data protection—have to be addressed. When the Minister chairs the Cabinet Sub-Committee, I hope that he will deal with that and ensure that the issue of the perception of barriers is addressed, as well as the removal of the barriers themselves.
  Earlier this year I had the pleasure of sitting on the Committee considering the Communications Bill. It has been suggested that the Committee did not consider all its clauses, but most of those that were not debated did not have any amendments tabled to them. The Bill was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, so I reject any suggestion that it was not properly scrutinised. The key point of the Bill is to set up a converged regulator, but there is little point in that unless we have a converged industry to regulate.
  The Minister knows of my concern that convergence largely depends on broadband and that although we currently have technological convergence, we have not yet achieved social usage convergence. One of the best ways of achieving that is through greater take-up of
  472
  broadband. I urge the Minister to consider not only infrastructural issues, but content and how people use the internet. Everyone talks about exclusion as though it were a geographical issue alone, but it is also about how and where people use services and how they use them to buy goods and services.
  When I started out as a programmer in the 1970s, there were many blind programmers because the technology allowed them to use it. The introduction of Windows and the like practically wiped out blind programmers from the industry. It has taken a long time to get disabled people working again in the industry because the things that allowed them to work in the industry were not addressed when the new technologies were brought in. A key skills issue is making sure that new technologies are not just introduced for the few, and that issues surrounding disability and exclusion are tackled.
  The Minister covered the point about why we should not simply rely on BT. The hon. Member for Blaby said that Germany was ahead of us. I hope he realises how Deutsche Telekom has got there. The East of England Development Agency has given £3.4 million to Norfolk for a high-capacity broadband network. It is supposed to be along the lines of those of European cities such as Antwerp and Stockholm. Some people have expressed concern that making such a sum available to create those networks is breaking EU state aid rules. Whether that is the case or not, there is a perception that some initiatives are not going forward for that reason. The Government need to clarify what the rules are to ensure that, where people are taking innovations forward, best practice is spread round the country. In particular, regional development agencies need transparency about what kind of investments they can and cannot make.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Obviously, my constituency is affected by the EEDA grant. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the grant should have been awarded only if it had been available to other counties and on a completely even basis? I did not quite get the drift of his remarks.
  Brian White: My point was that some people say that the grant should not have been awarded because it broke the state aid rules. I do not accept that. I am saying to the Minister that we need clarity about what constitutes state aid for innovations and pilot projects. We need to ensure that good practice is spread across the country.
  Lawrie Quinn: In Finland, the whole community grasped the need to invest in the nation's infrastructure and included broad band and the internet in that infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend agree that we in this country need to take that cultural step to adjust to these new opportunities and perhaps to get over the hurdle of the state aid argument?
  Brian White: I have a Finnish wife and I would entirely agree with that. Stockholm city council created a company that it wholly owned. The company raised capital on the stock exchange, cabled the whole of Stockholm, opened it up to competition with different companies and within 18 months repaid the loan capital.

  473
  It now gives the citizens of Stockholm a rebate. Such an initiative is not allowed in the United Kingdom because Treasury rules prohibit local authorities from following such a route. We need to address that sort of barrier if we are to move forward with broadband.
  Many people compare us with South Korea and ask why, since South Korea puts billions of dollars into broadband, we cannot do the same. There are a lot of tower blocks and flats in South Korea and broadband is used as a way of social inclusivity and of dealing with the security of housing. In this country we have much more individual housing, but there are lessons to be learned from South Korea for our tower blocks and housing estates.
  It is important that we do not focus on ADSL alone but recognise that broadband is far more than the provision of ADSL and the other technologies. The hon. Member for Blaby asked what wi-fi was. Broadband wireless has the opportunity to plug some of the gaps that are causing some problems, certainly in my city. That is an exciting opportunity. If the forthcoming auction goes well, it will deliver some of the investment that is needed. Most people who saw television over Easter cannot fail to have noticed the adverts for 3G. It is an important service that is coming online and will tackle many of the mobile broadband issues. It is important to recognise that.
  With the introduction of wireless broadband there are real issues concerning access points and gateways—a matter on which the Minister has already touched. The United States Senate and the Welsh Assembly have already looked at some of these issues. It is important for the Minister to consider providing gateways into rural areas. The issue is not so much about the provision of wireless broadband, as about the gateways that are causing barriers. That applies to satellite broadcasting too. We must not get hooked on whatever the panacea of the moment is. We did that with local loop unbundling and we have done it with a number of things in the past. It is important to be technology neutral. If we are to achieve the Government's targets it is important that we do not put all our eggs in one basket, but promote the principles of broadband rather than any particular technology.
  The Government are to be commended on their targets. The Public Administration Committee has just taken evidence on targets, and I recommend its forthcoming report to the House. Two points emerge from the evidence. First, if the private sector achieves 80 per cent. of its targets, it is considered to have done well. If the public sector fails to achieve 20 per cent. of its targets, it is considered to have failed. We must recognise that if we set challenging targets, there will be failures and that that is not a bad thing but a way of moving forward. Secondly, a good target transforms the way in which people operate. The Government's target has transformed the way in which Departments operate. Simply to keep to the target that all online services should be online by 2005 is not necessarily the best way forward. We need to look at the transformation of services and to ensure that the vast majority of people can access services differently. A recent report by Cisco stated that where investment is linked to changes in
  474
  business methods, there is a much bigger productivity improvement than if only one of those two things happens.
  It is important that we recognise the work of the e-envoy, and I pay tribute to Andrew Pinder and the Office of Government Commerce for their efforts to implement the work of the broadband stakeholder group. I look to the Minister to reinforce that work, spreading best practice in both Whitehall and industry. We should shift the policy focus from the promotion of e-commerce—although that is important—to a more holistic consideration of e-business as a whole, which includes high internet use.
  In the European Union, internet use has increased from about 67 per cent. to 79 per cent., but the sales of actual services fell during 2001–s02. We need to realise that quality matters, too. About a quarter of small businesses are still on dial-up analogue services, while the majority of large companies use systems of 2 megabytes or more, or four times the speed of ADSL. Simply relating broadband to ADSL will not raise us to where we need to be. That imbalance exists throughout the EU, so we need to adopt an EU focus.
  We need to ensure that we promote regional clusters. My city, Milton Keynes, is in the middle of the Oxford-Cambridge technology arc, but such clusters need support from the whole Government, not merely from the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Trade and Industry. Where the clusters cross RDA boundaries, cross-regional working should be enhanced.
  We need to tackle the skills shortage. The Government have set up several initiatives but they have tended to remain as pilots. We have not been especially good at transforming pilots into mainstream funding. The Minister is aware of some of the problems, but I emphasise that we need to learn lessons from the pilots and find ways of transforming them into mainstream funding, especially as regards skills.
  Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work being carried out by the British Computer Society, especially on a project called the European computer driving licence, and by the Communication Workers Union, the telecommunications trade union, has been instrumental outside Government Those groups played a key part in the stakeholder group in developing the training options to which my hon. Friend alludes?
  Brian White: My hon. Friend underpins my point: many good things are happening, but we need to ensure that they are joined up. That is one of the points identified by the stakeholder group, and we need to work on that.
  The skills shortage affects not only people providing broadband services but also the people who access such services. Broadband is about much more than merely getting people online more quickly: it is about giving them the confidence and ability to make innovations and to open up new possibilities.
  There are several problems that need to be addressed. The Minister will be aware that spam can deter people from using the internet. We need to make progress on work to provide solutions to that problem. He will also

  475
  be aware of the work of the Internet Watch Foundation, highlighted in its recent report, to tackle pornography, especially child pornography. That is a good example of self-regulation, but in order for self-regulation to work it needs to be properly funded. The IWF pointed out that, in the past, a reliance on too few funders caused real problems. I urge the whole ICT industry, especially the new third-generation mobile companies, to fund the IWF and to recognise that self-regulation is not cost-free.
  At present, there is a problem with the rolling out of broadband across the UK owing to BT's dominant position in the wholesale market. There are two BT products on the market: BT IPStream and BT DataStream. Tiscali, a company in my constituency, and other companies, such as Energis, have drawn attention to the wholesale price impact of BT's broadband pricing. BT is reducing the price of IPStream so that it can promote BT Openworld and others—internet service providers—to those who actually use the BT internet, but it is not reducing the price of DataStream, which network suppliers use. Telecoms companies that use their own network and therefore use the DataStream product, however, pay a higher price. To me, that is unfair competition. The matter has been raised with Oftel, but the procedures by which it is being resolved are far too slow. Again, one of the issues that was raised when we discussed Ofcom was the speed with which such regulatory issues are resolved. Those kinds of barriers cause real problems. When Ofcom comes into existence, we need to ensure that its speed of reaction is far faster than Oftel's. The broadband stakeholder group has told the Government that it wants the UK to be the world leader in this field by 2005, but it is also necessary to get the investment climate right. That means removing some of the regulatory barriers to access.
  It has been suggested that the dotcom boom has meant the end of investment in ICT. That is not the case, however. If we look at the history, we have been in this position before. In the 1880s, there was a railway boom, followed by a crash, followed by stronger railway companies coming out of it. In the 1920s, there were thousands of car manufacturers, there was a boom and a crash, and very strong car manufacturers came out of it. The same thing is happening to dotcoms: there was a boom, then a crash, and the companies that survived that crash are coming out of it far stronger and far more effective than when they started. In relation to the City and getting the investment climate right, there was an over-expectation during the dotcom boom about profits. The Government have a role to play in ensuring that analysts have the right kind of information on which to base their investment decisions. Instead of going from glut to famine, we should have been having sustained investment.
  Lastly, EU legislation has a key role to play. At the last count, there were about 50 EU initiatives that affected broadband issues. If we are to exploit broadband properly in this country, we need to make sure that those initiatives are subject to proper debate so that we can influence them at an early stage, rather than it being too late to do so, as has tended to happen in the past. A number of content issues are also emerging, such as intellectual property rights—relating to both software and content—and I do not think that today is
  476
  the right day to have that debate. There are open source and e-crime issues, however, and an EU consultation is currently taking place on intellectual property rights. At the moment, the Minister is rightly concentrating on infrastructure and regulatory issues. We need to ensure, however, that the policy debate moves forward on to content. One of the dangers is that this place moves at such a slow pace that we will find ourselves behind the times again.
  There will be calls for regulation of the internet as broadband develops, and I hope that the Minister will resist them. We need to ensure however, that the kind of initiatives suggested by the broadband stakeholder group—I welcome the Government's positive response to its recommendations last November—are taken on board and dealt with quickly. Its work highlights the need for still more work to be done by the Government, while recognising what has already been done. Some barriers still exist—I have touched on the regulatory and financial ones.
  We also need to learn lessons from other countries, and I am pleased that the Minister has taken on board the lessons from Canada and Finland. There are still vested interests that hold things back, however, whether in the public services or in industry. We must also tackle those. I am optimistic about this debate, and I know that the Minister is held in quite high regard in the industry. Addressing some of the issues that I have raised, however, will be key to taking forward broadband. Broadband has the potential to transform our lives, and while no one will go out and sell it on the doorstep, it will have a far more profound effect on our quality of life in the future than some of the other issues that we spend our time talking about in this place.
  3.39 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I am deputising for my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who is infinitely better informed about these issues than I am. However, I recognise that he has some competition, not least from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). I also know that the Minister is highly authoritative, and even the Conservative spokesman showed an impressive grasp of the jargon. I cannot hope to compete with that.
  I face an additional disadvantage in that I represent an urban constituency in south-west London where broadband is not art issue and never has been. The pavements were dug up 10 years ago for the cable companies, and people have access to the system. My constituency is relatively high income, with a relatively highly educated population. Broadband is widely used and, indeed, taken for granted.
  If we have a digital divide, it is not a geographical one; it is more based on age. A serious problem is emerging in terms of an elderly population who have no access to information technology and who are increasingly bypassed by many information flows. One of my minor accomplishments as an MP was to persuade the local adult education college to lift the age bar that it used to impose on people doing IT courses to prevent people of over 65 from learning about the subject. However, the age barrier remains a problem.
  I was not even aware of geographical barriers to broadband until I acquired a new partner, who is a farmer in the New Forest. She is a logical and competent

  477
  person but, when I asked her to download some photographs on her farm, she was unable to do so because she is outside the 3 km limit on the pipes. Access is an issue even in the relatively affluent areas where people cannot get access to fast internet connections.
  As I am not an expert on the subject, I shall ask three elementary questions. The first is about what broadband means in terms of the economic implications for business competitiveness. The second is about the spread of geographical access. What is the best model to follow when encouraging that? The third is about the Government's £1 billion pound initiative, and whether that is the appropriate way forward.
  On the first point, I had what I feared might be a slightly dim question. Why should we take it for granted that broadband is a good thing? However, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has already posed that question. It seems self-evident that a new technology that enables information to flow more quickly and easily will stimulate the economy. However, I was struck by a recent comment from the director general of the Federation of the Electronics Industry, who made the challenging assertion that he had yet to see a single major viable business use for broadband. He was implying that broadband has many interesting applications domestically and in big companies, but he challenged us to come up with concrete examples of how it would materially affect economic performance. I do not know what the answer to his question is; I assume that he is wrong, but that is not self-evident.
  Mr. Paice: May I suggest that the answer lies in the long-established statement that time is money?
  Dr. Cable: That is a good common-sense answer. However, that probably manifests itself not so much in the overall performance of the economy, but in where and how we work. A good example was described to me. For example, architects increasingly work from home or in small communities. They do not need to drive into an urban practice, because they can download complicated charts and maps. Designers can do the same. Time is money, and many professions and many creative businesses can operate from home. That is changing the geographical pattern in which economic activity takes place. One of the consequences is that communities—particularly rural communities—that do not have access to broadband miss out on that kind of self-employment and small business.
  It is almost self-evidently true that broadband is economically beneficial, but we need a sensible benchmark as to how the United Kingdom is performing. The Minister said that he would come forward with figures in a few weeks, but those that I have seen are bewilderingly contradictory and lacking in meaning. Perhaps he can help us to interpret them. When I researched the debate, I discovered that Reed Electronics Research argues that the continental European model is much better than ours because 10 per cent. of households access broadband compared with 6 per cent. here. However, IDC Consulting argues that penetration in continental Europe is only 4 per cent., which shows that there are vast disparities in the information.
  478
  I appreciate that the concept is difficult to measure because broadband is a process rather than an end point and employs many different technologies. However, surely it is possible to decide on a common denominator against which national performance could be measured so that we would know whether we were ahead of the game or behind it. The Minister started his speech by saying that we got into broadband rather late, but it would be useful to know our exact performance. I understood that the United States, which we usually expect to be at the head of information technology matters, has a broadband domestic penetration of about 4 per cent., which is a lower proportion than that of the UK. I would be interested to know whether that is the case.
  My second set of questions is about how we may widen access and deal with the problem of areas, and especially rural areas, that are excluded. I would like to establish that we are talking about the same set of data. Figures from British Telecom show that 1.8 million households use broadband. The cable provider NTL quotes a figure of 6 per cent. of households—I assume that the figures are the same. About 11.4 million households have internet access.
  Two distinct problems tend to be rolled into one, although they might be related in many ways. First, significant numbers of households do not yet have internet access and, secondly, a number of internet-owning households do not have broadband. I was struck by an Office for National Statistics survey that showed that more than half non-owning households had no intention of acquiring internet access under any circumstances. We are heading toward an environment in which the number of people who own personal computers and access the internet with even relatively simple technology will plateau and a significant proportion of the population will be excluded from internet access due to reasons of choice and age.
  I want to deal with those who have access to the internet, but want faster broadband connections. Roughly 70 per cent. of those people may access faster broadband connections, mainly because they live in urban communities that have cable. However, problems exist even in those areas. My colleagues met a delegation from the cable company just a few weeks ago and it pointed out that many elements of the Government's regulations on street works, such as the charging system and the procedure for restoration work, are causing many problems for cable companies, albeit unintentionally. Have the Government given any thought to that problem given that we have taken it for granted that there is not a serious problem of urban cable access?
  Five per cent. of households that access the internet are in remote areas and will always find it difficult to access broadband; my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) speaks eloquently on that subject. A further 5 per cent. are in the same position as my partner because they live in areas such as the New Forest which are such a distance from the exchange that they cannot access broadband. The remaining 20 per cent. are in the trigger point because new technological applications and a stimulation of demand might bring them within the system. What is the best mechanism to assist the diffusion of broadband to those households, which are mainly in rural areas?

  479
  The Minister described the British model, and the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) endorsed it. It is essentially based on competition, and that is right because there are many competing companies and there has been minimum use of Government subsidy, whereas in France and Japan a massive amount of Government money has been thrown at the problem. If private sector providers will implement broadband, there is no reason why the Government should subsidise it.
  Although the £30 million that the Government allocated is relatively small and not enormously controversial, it raises legitimate questions. There are both good and bad models for the use of funding by regional development agencies. An oft-cited good model is the Cornish case. The RDA for Cornwall, working in conjunction with local communities, let BT provide and pay for the normal connection charges. The RDA then provided an additional subsidy for those connections that were above the normal cost—so the access has been enlarged and BT is making a contribution.
  The contrasting example, put to me by a cable company that may have its own interest in being critical, is the Scottish case. It has been argued that such a use of public money is inappropriate and simply reinforces the use of the ADSL system when alternative technologies could have been used. In addition, it was argued that the process was opaque. I do not know whether the Minister will volunteer comments about the different experiences of the RDAs, but they seem to vary.
  The Government's billion-pound plan could be ambitious. Listening to the Minister, it seems that they have two, potentially conflicting, objectives. The first is to improve public services. We can hardly quarrel with that. The second is to stimulate demand for the industry. People in the industry have explained to me that in the attempt to aggregate demand, decisions are being delayed. Public sector providers might make decisions now if left to their own devices, but are being held back by the need to aggregate and plan those decisions. I do not know whether that criticism is valid.
  Although the Government described their programme in broad terms, they are trying to achieve two different things, which need to be analysed in a slightly different way. They are trying to improve public services, and I can think of obvious practical examples of how that could be achieved. If a doctor's surgery can switch an x-ray to hospital through a broadband-connected machine and receive it back again, that is infinitely better than shipping it around by hand. One can appreciate how the health service could work much better with the direct application of such skills.
  I have a reservation. The public sector in general has been extraordinarily bad at integrating IT systems. We have heard about scandalous cases of misuse of funds and bad management, and there was simply a primitive use of technology. The Crown Prosecution Service and the police are the most notorious examples of that. What assurances do we have that the public services have learned from those experiences so that they will be better equipped to handle the new generation of what I assume will be more sophisticated technology?
  Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that private sector companies have experienced similar
  480
  problems, but they do not get the same publicity? The problem is not necessarily with the public sector, but with the way in which IT companies relate to their customers.
  Dr. Cable: I am sure that the problem is often one of large organisations rather than necessarily one of government. I worked in one of the largest international oil companies and remember the grief caused by attempts to generate new IT systems there. It is not an ideological point; there have been major problems. I wonder how the NHS, which is the biggest public sector unit in, I think, the world, will manage to aggregate its needs efficiently.
  Mr. Robathan: I apologise for missing the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech when I was having lunch. He is making an extremely good point. In response to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), may I add that the difference between a large oil company, such as Shell, losing a lot of money on IT and a public sector organisation is that the taxpayer does not have to pay for that company's losses?
  Dr. Cable: The public sector does not have to pay either if it structures its deals properly. That is probably one of the lessons that we have to learn.
  The other aspect of the billion-pound programme is not so much making public services work better as providing better information flows to the public and helping people to communicate, for example, by paying their taxes and getting passports on the internet. That is already happening, often in surprising ways. I have discovered in the past few months that because my local council is putting its unitary development plan and all its planning applications on the internet so that local people can access them—if they have broadband, they can get all the maps—between 500 and 1,000 people have been turning up to public meetings that I have organised to discuss fairly modest issues such as the use of a public open space. They have downloaded the maps and they can see how a proposal will affect their homes and their areas, so they are massively engaged.
  There is a problem with that, however. Planning is a relatively wired-up area, so the council has got used to notifying the public of planning decisions through the local online service. Most people are aware of that and make their objections, but the information flows are completely bypassing elderly people and others who do not have access. Although a great deal is happening, and most of it is beneficial and efficient, what will happen to ensure that we provide public sector information to that residual part of the population—the elderly, those on relatively low incomes and the isolated—who do not have broadband or, indeed, any internet provision?
  There was a proposal, which the Minister will know about—indeed, he may be a little embarrassed about it—to make sub-post offices the locus for bringing together all those information flows. I believe that the Government have retained the idea that post offices will, like a GP service, provide generic advice, but the technology aspect has been lost. If post offices are not to be the focal point, where is that point to be? If I am a newcomer to an area, whether it is the New Forest, Shetland or Twickenham, and I do not have broadband,

  481
  cannot afford it and do not know how to operate it, I will want to go somewhere to get information about working with the Inland Revenue or understanding my local development plan and planning applications. Where would I go? Where is the public resource—the central point at which a local authority would bring all that information together?
  3.57 pm
  Mr. John Maples: We have listened to a series of speeches by people who obviously know what they are talking about, and I hope that the last two speakers will forgive me if I do not follow them down the routes that they took, interesting though those were. This is not my specialist subject, as will rapidly become apparent, but I have a problem, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some answers when he winds up the debate.
  I want to concentrate on the problem in rural areas, which have 25 per cent. of the population and produce 30 per cent. of GDP. Only about a quarter of BT's exchanges have been upgraded to operate ADSL, and depending on what figures one uses, between 10 and 20 per cent. of the rural population have access to broadband. I want to confine the problem further—to business in rural areas. I am not desperately concerned about whether individuals have access to broadband in their homes, although I suppose that it would enable my children to stream even more unsuitable videos to themselves when I do not know that they are doing it. We manage to live in my village without Channel 5 and I do not hear a huge number of complaints about that. However, I am concerned about business and the rural economy.
  Rightly, part of the Government's strategy for rural areas, and that of the previous Conservative Government, was to encourage diversification and to encourage businesses to locate themselves, or to stay, in rural areas. Businesses have been encouraged to convert old farm buildings, for example, and there are many of those in my constituency. If all those people have to relocate to a large town to get a service that they need, we will have more problems in the towns with transport, traffic congestion and pollution, costs that the Government will have to pay, one way or another, because those costs tend to get externalised.
  If we are serious about business staying in rural areas it has to be able to be competitive. For many businesses, access to broadband is part of that competitiveness and the foundation of productivity. If an architect's practice, to use the example given by another hon. Member, or another business that does a great deal of work on the internet, could not get broadband, while its competitors in the nearest big town could, that would be a serious problem, and it would lead to migration to the towns.
  Despite being called Stratford-on-Avon, my constituency is about 500 square miles of rural Warwickshire. Stratford is the only exchange that is broadband-enabled. Two others, in Southam and Alcester, will be enabled this month, and trigger levels have been set for two more, at Studley and Wellesbourne. I like to think that we had some role in persuading BT to publish those targets and in getting
  482
  people to sign up, resulting in two of the exchanges I mentioned being enabled. I hope that the other two will be as well. No trigger levels have been set for three other major exchanges in my area, and many small exchanges are not even on the list for getting a trigger level in the next few weeks or months.
  I urge the Minister to persuade BT to publish trigger levels, or even to insist that it do so, so that we know what is needed in an area to make the exercise economic for BT; then, we will know in which areas broadband will never be economic. I realise that BT faces problems—if the company is to act voluntarily provision has to be economically sensible. However even if all the exchanges for which trigger levels have been published are enabled, many rural areas will still not have access to broadband, either because they are too remote, or because enabling their exchanges will never be viable—I understand that for technical reasons some exchanges cannot be enabled. I am concerned about that, but I want to explore a few ideas about how the problems might be addressed and ask the Minister to comment on them.
  First, might we consider introducing a universal service obligation? Large areas of the countryside would not have telephones, electricity or even water if there were no universal service obligation. Do the Government think that that might be one way to proceed? I understand that there are problems with EU legislation and that the issue cannot be re-examined for a couple of years, but that is not an enormously long time in the context. What do the Government think would be the consequences for BT? Would it be reasonable to impose a universal service obligation on the company, or would it be hugely uneconomic, in which case we would pay for it in terms of inefficiencies in other parts of the telephone network? If so, perhaps the Government should consider helping. I am not usually at the forefront of asking the Government to spend money helping private business, or asking private business to do something that it does not want to do, but the Government will pick up the costs of failure in terms of the relocation of businesses to urban areas, creating traffic congestion and pollution problems. Therefore, the issue is not cost versus no cost, but one cost versus another.
  Secondly, BT is doing a great deal of work in this area and I have had helpful replies to correspondence with the company, which seems to be trying different technologies in different areas. However, reading what it has to say, it seems to me inevitable that not all rural areas will be reached—not all will have access to broadband. BT and my local regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands, are looking into wireless and satellite technologies. Does the Minister think that those are viable alternatives for rural businesses?
  I understand that satellite is far more expensive, at about £1,000 to initiate compared with about £30 for a regular ADSL connection, but that is not a huge sum in a business context, although an individual might see it differently. Any business that needs broadband to remain competitive will probably be able to afford the £1,000 initial charge. My concern is whether the system is viable for the type of rural business I have in mind. 1 understand that there is a technical problem in that either the upstream or the downstream traffic runs at

  483
  half the speed of the other; is that likely to be overcome? Is wireless technology, which BT and Advantage West Midlands are exploring, likely to provide a solution?
  Thirdly, will the Minister tell me about the Government's programme to link up schools and GPs? I listened carefully to the Minister's speech and heard him say that all GPs—I was going to ask him whether all GPs or most GPs would be part of the programme—will be broadband enabled by March 2004. There are GPs in many of the villages that I represent—and, I am sure, in areas represented by many other right hon. and hon. Members. If broadband cabling, or some other system to give them broadband access, is to be installed, could it be made available to rural businesses? Giving business access might help to defray the costs—the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) talked about something similar happening in Stockholm, although that might not be an exact parallel. Perhaps the Government could charge people: if the alternative was satellite costing £1,000, it might be possible to get £750 from a rural business that wanted to hook up and thus defray part of the cost.
  Does the Minister think that that is a viable solution, or does it run into serious problems with European law on state aids? It would be a pity if it did. There are all sorts of special schemes for rural areas, such as the new rural regulation that allows common agricultural policy money to be spent on non-agricultural matters in rural areas. It seems a pity if, on one hand, we and the European Union were trying to promote business and non-farm activities in rural areas, and, on the other, we stopped for a competition reason problem one of the things that was an essential ingredient of such businesses being able to remain competitive.
  The regional development agency in my area is playing a part, with its share of the Government's £30 million, in trying out some things. I understand that it is heavily involved in the backbone network that the Government are putting in place and is undertaking some rural pilots. It says that it believes—it is a bit of a throwaway line in its memorandum—that satellite services are a practical alternative for most small and medium-sized enterprises. I am not convinced that that is so.
  I have rather more questions than solutions, but the problems to which I have referred are important to several businesses in my constituency. I think that that situation will be replicated throughout much of the country, and in geographical terms, most of it. There are many rural constituencies like mine in which there are villages and businesses that will never, realistically, have access to BT's cable broadband service, without either some Government intervention, some ability to hook up to the Government's own network, or some alternative technology.
  I read carefully the report of the Minister's speech in a Westminster Hall debate a couple of months ago, or whenever. I did not feel from that that this issue was really addressed. I realise that there are many other issues that must be higher up the Government's list of priorities with which they must deal. However, the issue before us is important to many of us. I think that any Member representing a rural constituency would say to the Minister that it is coming pretty high up in the issues
  484
  that are raised in their postbag. We are receiving many letters and other forms of communication about it. People feel upset and angry. They feel that their problem is not understood. II am sure that the Government understand the issues but I look forward to the Minister telling me how he thinks that the Government can help to solve the problem, or whether he thinks that market forces can solve it.
  4.6 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I come to this debate as a strong believer in science and the development of science through technology to improve the quality and standard of life of the people of our country and of the world. I have always been a strong supporter of communications technology. I am certainly the only person taking part in the debate who is a veteran of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill. Therefore, I have a sense of djvu. It was back in that era, when the House was legislating for the arrival of cable television, that we were faced with a new technology that was, on the one hand, grasped with great expectation by existing companies but, on the other, was resisted until those organisations had their share of the market sewn up.
  There is a certain amount for which BT can be forgiven. It is acting in the good commercial interests of its owners and customers. However, we should not forget that it is the monopoly supplier of broadband in this country. More than 90 per cent. is in its hands. Therefore, I suspect that we need to take what it has to tell us—it has had much to tell us in its briefings during the past week—with a large pinch of rock salt. One of my purposes will be to encourage the Minister to develop his own thinking and to explain to the House the alternative methods of delivery of broadband.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has said, broadband is a real issue in our constituencies. Only 10 days ago, when I was canvassing in the local elections, I stopped to read the village notice board in Pitton, which is opposite the excellent village shop of Mr. Morrison, where I had popped in to buy a bottle of gin. Not many people realise that a bottle of gin in a village shop is often cheaper than the same brand in Tesco. However, I digress. I read on the notice board an advertisement from a frustrated local resident. He was saying, "Please sign up and register with BT because we want broadband in Pitton."
  That was not the first village. In Shrewton, Fonthill Bishop, Tisbury, Dowriton, Trafalgar, Whiteparish and Amesbury, people are similarly concerned about the issue. In Amesbury, a trigger threshold has been announced by BT.
  Mention has been made of the role of the development agencies. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is disappointed with the agency in his area. The south west RDA has been playing an important role in assisting the development of broadband communication.
  Whether we like it or not, RDAs are now important players and big distributors of taxpayers' money, so I want to make sure that my RDA operates effectively for my constituents. I think that it does—it has an excellent website, ConnectingSW.net, where people can find a great deal of information and discover how it is doing.

  485
  They can also find out about satellite broadband delivery by connecting up to the remote area broadband inclusion trial or RABBIT system.
  I have been briefed by NTL, which is an interesting company. After the passage of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, I became 1 he director of a cable television company, which was taken over by interests now represented by NTL, so I saw the development of the technology at first hand. NTL has pointed out that it would be a mistake to believe that only DSL technology can be used in broadband technology. If we only go down the ADSL route, we will give BT a monopoly. NTLs answer is to trial wireless broadband services in the 10 GHz band, and it is talking to development agencies about the use of that technology in rural areas. It looks forward to the forthcoming auction of band with which it hopes will be cheaper than the last round. We should not be lulled into the belief that only BT can provide the technology.
  I mentioned the exchange at Amesbury, which BT says requires a trigger level of 350 customer registrations to be viable for broadband upgrade. I was therefore interested in the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), who has conducted a campaign for broadband in his constituency, where the trigger is different. Each and every one of us should be interested in the breakeven level set by BT Wholesale, which is three years in Penrith. My right hon. Friend has asked why that extraordinary and arbitrary figure has been set as the payback period for investment. After all, Sky television took 10 years to break even. Why the magic figure of three years? Is it just good commercial sense by BT, which is telling us how long it thinks it will take to break even? It has said that it is prepared to take 50 per cent. of the risk, for which I salute it. However, that is a commercial choice—there is nothing technical or political about it. None the less, I wish my right hon. Friend success in his campaign for his constituents.
  The Minister said some important things in our excellent debate on 25 March. I pay tribute to him, as those of us who have been in the House more than five minutes recognise a Minister who knows what he is talking about. That can be a severe disadvantage, however, as it means that the Minister shares our frustration at not being able to move further and faster, given all the frustrations of government and different departmental interests, including the insurmountable obstacle at the Treasury, which has to be overcome. However, at column 55WH on 25 March, he said:
  "I do not believe that there should be a general public subsidy for broadband, which has been suggested. The key role for the public sector in broadband will not be through handing out subsidies; it will be as a customer for broadband services because public services will spend over £1 billion on broadband in the next three years."
  The Minister went on to mention the problem of backhaul infrastructure, which involves the cost of connecting a local exchange or a new wireless base station to the core network. He said:
  "The key point here is that the investment that delivers, for example, broadband to a school in a rural area in the future can also contribute to the backhaul for a local access system for the community as a whole. That is the key".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 55WH.]
  486
  The Minister was absolutely right.
  I believe that there is an important role for wireless technology, and we have not heard nearly enough from companies interested in making an investment about its use as an appropriate technology. The Financial Services Agency was slow in sorting out its housekeeping, taking a year to get up and running. I suspect that Ofcom will spend a year sorting itself out and doing the housekeeping. It is a slow process. I hope very much that Lord Currie, who I think is an excellent choice of person to do the job, will sort out the FSA—I mean Ofcom, although I wish he would do the same for the FSA—as quickly as possible. If he can do so in less than a year, we will make some real progress.
  In rural areas, there will probably always be hybrid solutions. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke of his constituency, where the issue does not arise. It will always arise in mine. Sixty per cent. of my electors live outside Salisbury, in more than 100 villages. That is the problem. More than 3 km out from the hub, or perhaps 6 km, the trouble begins. We must have a hybrid solution.
  There is another problem that the South West of England Regional Development Agency has put to me. Whether it is deliberate or not, I do not know, but BT Wholesale and BT Retail are not talking to one another very well at present. Sometimes there is a regional management issue, and the RDA finds that if it talks to BT Wholesale, it is told to refer the problem to BT Retail. Even though there is a common manager somewhere up there in the heavens, a little game goes on, which causes delay. That is not good enough, and I hope BT will deal with the matter.
  Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of network companies are experiencing equal frustration in their discussions with BT Wholesale, and that the problem will be resolved by the opening up of competition? That is a key job for Oftel initially, and Ofcom later.
  Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for my thesis. He is another expert in the House, so I hope the Minister will realise that what I am saying must be true, and will address the issue.
  Other possible solutions have been suggested. For example, there is a group in the south-west that wants a wireless solution, but that would involve borrowing £80 million from the European Investment Bank, and it would be a monopoly, which would crush all the competition and would therefore not be allowed. Even if one wants to attract big money, one cannot do it because that would crush the opposition and be against the rules.
  A further approach is the Atlas project in Scotland, which involved the laying of the cable between Scotland and London. Scottish Enterprise did a remarkable job there. It provided access both ways, giving Scotland a great advantage.
  Satellite is expensive. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon is once again right. For a business of a substantial size that will generate substantial income, the £1,000 charge may not seem too much, but for many small companies it is too much. For example, a small company that I know in Fonthill Bishop has been told that £900 is the charge. There is no way that a one-man

  487
  business can sustain that level of investment. Other approaches have been tried, such as the regional development agencies that got together in the RABBIT project and produced a system of vouchers for first-year costs. That may be one way forward, but it is only an interim solution.
  My best information is that satellite access to broadband will only ever be about 2 per cent. of the services provided. Some people might say that that is a little low. We must address the problem of small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as one-man businesses. Ironically, many creative people, such as writers and designers, who could bring life and wealth to the rural communities are being prevented from doing so because of the bottlenecks. Sometimes they are commercial bottlenecks, and sometimes they are caused by restrictions.
  I should like the Minister to expand on a topic that he touched on in the Westminster Hall debate. I know what was running through his mind on that occasion: he had 10 minutes to wind up the debate. He could have spoken for 100 minutes and he would probably have said what he was longing to say, but he had only 10. Well, he will have more than 10 minutes this evening, so I should like him to address this issue, please.
  First, will it be possible for commercial traffic to run on public networks? That is the real issue for rural areas. There are restrictions at present, such as the BT sales contracts. If one is under contract to BT, the line cannot be sub-let, so no one can share. Therefore, having one major enterprise is no good. It is not even good for a public enterprise to have a BT contract, because it cannot sub-let to the private sector, to small firms or individuals.
  The second issue concerns Ofcom itself. It is argued that the public sector supply is achieved at a discounted price. If, having obtained the connection at a discounted price, one sub-lets to a private sector company or individual, that is once again counted as a subsidy, which is against the rules. Is that really a good enough argument for preventing the spread of access to broadband on the back of public sector investment?
  The next issue concerns the regulations and licences themselves. There is one set of regulations and licences for the public sector and another for the private sector. That, too, is a barrier to broadband access.
  Lord Currie's view will be critical in determining such issues, and I hope that the Minister will discuss them with him. My plea to him and to the Minister is to relax the regulations and allow for fertile development of the provision of broadband, particularly in rural areas where there are so many potential customers.
  It is wonderful that schools, doctors and local libraries will all be on line, but we must find a way of piggybacking on public investment. No one disputes that the public highway should be resurfaced, because it is used by the public sector, by ambulances, police cars and private vehicles. It is a common infrastructure and broadband should be similarly accessible. It should not necessarily all be provided by the public sector. but where the private sector is willing to invest, it should not be restricted in obtaining the service.
  I pay tribute to my county council of Wiltshire. It has taken a tremendous initiative in trying to access broadband for the taxpayers of Wiltshire and the Wiltshire smart place scheme has been successful.
  488
  Despite people thinking that there cannot possibly be any technology in Cornwall, I know differently. It is not even true that just because the satellite dishes are on Goonhilly Down there is no access to the world of cable. In Cornwall, small and medium-sized enterprises take up broadband at four times the national average rate, which goes to show that with dedication and vision, the removal of regulations and will in the public and private sectors, there is no reason why there should not be a much higher penetration of broadband as an everyday way of improving the quality of life and the advantages that Britain should enjoy in the 21st century.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. James Paice: The 100 minutes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred has already passed for the Minister, but I shall try to leave him a few because he clearly has many questions to answer.
  I want to follow much the same vein as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), looking at the subject as a self-confessed ignoramus, but very much aware that my constituency has major problems. My constituency surrounds Cambridge and we can literally see, on the other side of the road, the Cambridge science park enabled and active, while elsewhere knowledge-based businesses are disadvantaged. I do not like to refer to them as small businesses: they are often small because they have only a handful of people, but are major businesses in turnover and their impact on the economy.
  The case for broadband has been made well by so many hon. Members, including the Minister, that it does not need repeating. As has been said, it is simply a matter of competition. Whether or not one argues that broadband is necessary, the fact is that, if some have got it, everybody must have it to compete. That applies to businesses competing not only within the UK, but internationally.
  I want to concentrate on connectivity, as it is called in much of the documentation that I have read, and on the use of Government money—a point that I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister. I challenge him to answer this question: does he believe that the totality of public money spent on broadband is being used to the best advantage? I refer not only to the £30 million that has been mentioned several times, but to the £1 billion-plus that is being spent in the public sector on connection, of which the Prime Minister made so much in his statement in November.
  On the education sector, which has occupied much of the debate, the regional broadband consortiums with pooled local education authority funds are an important issue. In giving evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food arid Rural Affairs on 8 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), said that it was intended that all schools would be connected terrestrially in the long term. While some of them may be using satellite services, he made it clear—admittedly, only the uncorrected evidence is available—that he expected all their provision to be terrestrial.
  I confess that I am not sure whether radio counts as terrestrial—I assume that it does not—but it is clear that terrestrial provision involves copper or cable, including

  489
  fibre. Very large parts of the country do not have a cable connection, and neither will they get it in the foreseeable future, if we continue to proceed in the same way. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred to BT thresholds. Fortunately, we are all connected by copper through the universal service obligation, but the trigger levels in my constituency are set at varying levels, including 300 people, 350 people and others. BT has tried to explain why different trigger levels apply to different exchanges, but I confess that I have no idea about the justification for setting different levels. It seems to me that provision will either be viable in relation to a set number of connections or not. I do not fully understand that issue.
  As the Minister well knows, pioneering work is taking place in Bottisham in my constituency using the radio antenna-based system. However, even those involved in that pioneering work, which was established a year ago, have faced major problems. They received no grant from the regional development agency, as it was not yet at a stage at which it could give any money for the project. The only grant came from the Countryside Agency, which is not a body that one readily expects to invest in such work. However, another problem arose thereby—the radio-based system was such a success in the villages for which it was originally founded that the neighbouring villages all wanted to join in and link up through more radio antenna, although the Countryside Agency has now put its hands up and said, "Sorry, there is no more money; this is not really our field, although we were happy to put a little money in to try out the project and set it up." Once the system got going and those involved received the initial grant, which allowed them to reduce the connection fee from about £150 to £49, the rate of subscription from businesses and private individuals quadrupled. That is a clear link, but my constituents are paying the price of innovation. Although those involved have overtaken the field, a lot of villages are now unable to set up the system.
  There is another problem that affects rural constituencies throughout the country—the existence of cabling only in some locations. Cables were often installed in village centres, but did not cover much of the outlying ground. My village is a case in point. Of course, not every village that is cabled is connected to broadband. NTL, the operator in my area, has yet to do that work in many cases. The additional problem is that, if part of the village is connected up via cable, it dramatically reduces the potential for the rest of the community to be cabled or to meet a trigger level for BT or any other system. In some cases, partial cabling is more disadvantageous than no cabling at all. The only dedicated, discrete exchange in my constituency to have met the threshold is that of the city of Ely. Hon. Members will probably be surprised that that was not done ages ago.
  Mr. Key: It had a Liberal MP.
  Mr. Paice: I have to say to my hon. Friend that it is a long while since Ely had a Liberal MP. I cannot even claim the victory of having ousted him. The Boundary Commission ousted him from Ely, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire
  490
  (Mr. Moss) who finally removed him from this place. I am pleased to say that, ever since, the whole of eastern Cambridgeshire, as well as most of the rest of the county, has been represented by Conservative Members.
  My hon. Friend forces me to digress. The point is that in my very large constituency—it is roughly similar in size to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratfordon-Avon—only one exchange is enabled. Some parts of the constituency are enabled because they use exchanges from over the border, but large chunks are not, and many exchanges have neither thresholds nor any real likelihood of their being set.
  I turn to the situation in schools in Cambridgeshire. The regional consortiums expect all but three of the schools in the county to be connected by August 2004. I am not sure which those three are, but I suspect that they are not in my constituency. The Minister said that Government expenditure in the order of £1 billion will open up opportunities for communities, but the advice that I am receiving suggests that there are serious implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury mentioned the whole issue of the network and regulations. Another issue is cost. Will the Minister clarify how he expects all the schools in rural and more remote areas to be linked up? Clearly, it will not be done by cable. The only options are radio, satellite or the leasing of copper from BT. I suspect that leasing copper will be the commonest approach, because it is already there. The problem is that it is not a capital but an ongoing cost. Without wishing to get into the problems of educational funding and school budgets
  Mr. Key: Oh, go on.
  Mr. Paice: I shall resist the blandishments of my lion. Friend.
  If the connection is made by leasing copper, it becomes an annual charge on the education budget for the local education authority or, indeed, the individual school. Is long-term provision being made for that, or will the cost have to be absorbed within the schools budget, as in so many other circumstances? I hope that the Minister can shed some light on that.
  It seems to me, having not only listened to hon. Members who have spoken with immense knowledge, but gained information from elsewhere, that one problem is that we are concentrating on today's technology. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) said that we must not concentrate on ADSL. He is right about that, but perhaps we should not concentrate on radio or satellite either. At serious risk of showing my lack of knowledge, my information suggests that fibre will have to be used to accommodate the much faster speeds of connectivity that we will face in the not-too-distant future. The Minister was a little dismissive about future developments in technology and tended to concentrate on today.
  Choosing fibre means ducting. I revert to the Government's expenditure of more than £1 billion to develop their services when only £30 million is available for developing broadband in a huge swathe of the United Kingdom that represents approximately a quarter of the population. That raises the question of

  491
  value for money. I agree with the Minister that the Government should not subsidise such work, but they should consider using public money to facilitate development throughout the country. I am not convinced that that is happening.
  I am not a fan of development agencies, but nevertheless, the East of England Development Agency has a programme. It received the grand sum of £3.2 million for East Anglia out of the £30 million to which I referred. It contributed another £2.6 million from its resources. It received more than 100 applications from the eastern region for the original consultancy grant of up to £10,000. Yesterday was the closing date for applications for projects, and I am told that there were more than 30. The development agency anticipates that only a handful will get the go-ahead because of the availability of resources.
  There is no long-term prospect of more money. Earlier, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) chided my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the Conservative party's budgetary proposals, yet we are considering, to all intents and purposes, a one-off sum of £30 million from the Government. That is not a lot of money compared with £1 billion for connecting public services. Rather than arguing for more money, there is a case for the Government's spending the £1 billion more productively.
  I strongly endorse the competitive approach and stimulating demand to encourage innovation. I have no doubt that once we have the facility, demand will expand dramatically. It is easy to declare in the House that we should encourage businesses to sign up, register and so on, but it is difficult to effect that. Something that is not there will not necessarily grab interest. Once broadband is available and the business down the road starts using it, or children return from school and ask why they cannot do their school work at home on broadband when they can do that at school, it will drive up registration and connections locally.
  I strongly welcome the Minister's personal commitment, obvious knowledge and the announcements that he made today, but much of the £1 billion has already been spent or at least allocated. Although the Minister did not use the hackneyed phrase, "joined-up government" when he spoke of the committee that he will establish and chair, it is a little late for such an approach. Much of the public money has been spent.
  There is no obligation on those who are spending the public money on connecting public services to have any regard for what can be done for the rest of the community. It is fine for the Minister to say that there is no reason why the infrastructure provision for public service could not be available to others, but in many cases it is not. There is no obligation on providers to make it so. The quicker the Minister deals with that in his new committee, the quicker connection will happen.
  I suspect that the pass has been sold. As the Minister said, he was appointed only a few months ago and is trying hard to catch up and regain the ground that the Government lost. For many areas, of which my constituency is typical, there is no genuine prospect of new infrastructure, be it fibre-based cabling or large-scale radio systems. The figures that I cited from the
  492
  East of England Development Agency show that the majority of projects will not receive the funding that they need to get off the ground. I suspect that the areas where village schools are connected use leased copper. My information is that most of them will use the full 2 megabytes committed by the Government. While I do not pretend to understand it fully, I am told that there is a big question mark over whether the infrastructure for backhaul is as substantial as the Minister would have us believe.
  I do not doubt the Minister's commitment but I fear that, for my constituents and for many others in rural areas, there is no real likelihood of getting access to broadband in the very near future, unless he picks things up and shakes them vigorously to make things happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury made a number of proposals. I would like to think that the Minister will give us a commitment that, in every village that has a school—that is by no means every village—the connection to the school will also be available for the rest of the community and that public money will be spent constructively. That will be a considerable step forward, although it will still leave many villages unconnected. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will give us some commitment.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. Robathan: With the leave of the House, I wish briefly to touch on a few points and reiterate some of the points made by my hon. Friends and others. Everyone has been very nice about the Minister today. That is understandable because he is a decent cove but I hope that he will give good responses to some of these important questions.
  I was somewhat curtailed, not least by the arrival of people such as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), before the statement at 2.30 pm and I would like to touch on a few points that were left out. Some good points have been made. I will not bring them all up. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that he did not know much about the subject but he showed a tremendous grasp of the issues. He brought out many of those that need to be dealt with.
  None of us has a crystal ball and knows in what form broadband will develop. The broadband delivery systems that we are talking about today may be archaic in 20 years. Wireless or cable may have taken over completely from it—who knows?
  Good points were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about EU state aid, whether permission was required and whether the East of England Development Agency was behaving lawfully. The money given to RDAs was mentioned by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). There were concerns about the £30 million being given to RDAs and the £1 billion being spent on public service networks. My hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), raised the issue of securing access in rural areas for small and medium enterprises so that they can be competitive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) wanted it to be noted that he is very concerned about what happens in Cumbria. The point about the universal service obligation was made well, too.

  493
  As various of my hon. Friends said, Conservative Members particularly believe in competition but the Government do as well. We have an excellent opportunity. Lord Currie and his board at the new Ofcom are in a position to stimulate the competitive environment, protect consumers and liberalise the marketplace. Although we all know that he is somewhat linked to the Labour party, it appears to me—and I have not met him—that he has a pretty agile mind. Perhaps he will be in a particularly good position to deal with the issue. My hosts at the CBI annual dinner will be slightly distressed because he is on record as saying that BT should be broken up but we need a flexible approach from the regulator and from the Government. We need an enabling approach, not a dirigiste or controlling approach.
  As the Minister prepares to respond to the many points that have been made, I say that, in general, we think that regulation cannot replicate the good operation of the competitive market, and we look forward to hearing what he has to say about how that competitive market will develop.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Timms: We have had an interesting and helpful debate with many contributions, most of which started with Members confessing that they knew virtually nothing about the subject, but then demonstrating to the House that they knew a great deal and understood the issues well. I shall respond to some of the detailed and important points that were raised and add a few more of my own.
  The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) talked in his opening speech—as he said, it was a little curtailed, but he managed to cover a good deal of ground—about primary schools. He was concerned that many schools were limited to midband. As I said in my intervention, the current standard for primary schools is 2 megabytes per second two-way, and the target set by the Department for Education and Skills is 100 per cent. coverage at that standard by 2006. By last December, 16 per cent. of primary schools had reached that stage—a much higher proportion of secondary schools had reached it—which illustrates that we have a long way to go before we have provided primary schools with the functionality to which we are committed. I hope that that deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about rolling out the infrastructure to public services. As I say, there is a long way to go: the window is fairly narrow and we must ensure that we get the process right over the next few months in order to maximise the benefits for schools, and for other users.
  The hon. Member for Blaby spoke about the need to promote usage. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) for what he said about the Department of Trade and Industry's UK online for business programme, which is about helping businesses to understand how best to exploit technology—not only broadband, but other technological—opportunities—to—improve—their
  494
  performance. I was pleased to note that the Economist Intelligence Unit recently described the UK online for business programme as
  "one of the world's strongest and most innovative government projects supporting e-business".
  It has a network of more than 300 advisers delivering advice to businesses across the country through business links and other channels. It has helped some 100,000 businesses over the past 12 months and 175,000 have accessed support through its excellent website.
  Hon. Members may have noticed the current advertising campaign, featured prominently on London taxis, promoting the business benefits of broadband. It is part of the work that UK online for business has in hand this summer. The programme will introduce a mobile broadband demonstrator to support events run by it, providing another means of getting the broadband message out more widely. The broadband show is a project run in the south-west to promote the tourism and aerospace industries. It is putting on roadshows to demonstrate the business benefits of broadband to small firms in those two sectors.
  There is a lot of activity going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) referred to the campaign of the Communications Workers Union Broadband Britain—which is supported across the House. The British Computer Society, with its European computer driving licence initiative, is another example.
  The hon. Member for Blaby was, I thought, unduly dismissive of the work of the East Midlands Development Agency. He will find that EMDA will play a leading role in the months ahead in organising public sector demand for broadband in a way that also extends the benefits of broadband services to other users. I shall explain a little more later about how I view that working.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East referred to the need to deal with the challenges of broadband content. We need compelling content that will encourage people to access broadband, and much is happening in that respect, too. Last week, EMI reached agreement with more than 20 online retailers to offer digital downloads of their music—an important step forward.
  We in the Department are looking to see whether there is a role that we might play to support projects to stimulate the development of a compelling broadband content.
  My hon. Friend referred to the importance of the development of skills. Earlier I spoke about the launch of the e-skills agency, which will have an important role, and about the Government's skills strategy, which will be published later this year. He asked about Norwich. It is indeed the case that there is a project in Norwich with a grant from the EEDA which will establish a network of ducts in the city for service providers to use in establishing their services. The way in which that has been structured means that it will not fall foul of state aid rules, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there needs to be clarity about that. More work may well need to be done to establish that clarity. From his important contribution to the Communications Bill Committee, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill includes a clause to facilitate exactly that approach: to

  495
  give access to the communications code to organisations other than telecommunications operators, so that local authorities and others can make contributions of that kind to facilitate the investments that we need.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to 3G mobiles. As a proud and enthusiastic customer for third generation mobile services as of the past week—we have had a 3G service for less than a month, but there will be another two by the end of the year—I agree with him that 3G may well prove in due course to be an important mechanism for extending broadband availability to rural areas as well as to the city areas in which it has been introduced so far.
  My hon. Friend asked about the support from mobile companies for the Internet Watch Foundation. I agree with him about the valuable work that it does. As he said, it is a successful example of self-regulation. I am pleased to tell him that the proprietor of the first 3G service is contributing to the Internet Watch Foundation, as are Key Mobile, mm02, and Vodafone. Increasingly, as image and video content become available via mobile, it will be important that those companies support the work of the foundation.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) drew attention to the fact that there may be an age divide rather than a geographical divide in this area. There is a serious geographical divide as regards rural areas, but he is right to draw attention to the need to encourage what is called silver surfing among retired people. The UK online centres—the network that the Government have established—are targeting older people and others who may not have had the opportunities that others have had, and are doing so with some success.
  I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the confusion about the data on broadband. Oftel, which produces authoritative data for the UK, told me that we have 1.9 million broadband connections as of the end of April. Sometimes it is difficult to get a handle on what is happening elsewhere, and that is made more difficult by the speed at which things are moving. When I was appointed to this post, an item in one of the computing papers announced that the UK was neck and neck with Croatia on broadband. That picture has change beyond recognition in the intervening 12 months. We periodically commission research ourselves about the position in other countries so that we have data, but things move so quickly that it is difficult to keep track.
  The hon. Gentleman made the point about the different experiences of the work of RDAs and the devolved Administrations in this area. It is important that we maintain transparency and a strongly competitive market for broadband provision. That characterises many of the RDA initiatives about which we have heard. It is important not to introduce delays in the achievement of improvements in public services as a result of aggregating public sector demand. I do not think that we need do that, however. The hon. Gentleman is right to sound a warning, but it is essential to take the initiative forward without delaying those vital improvements.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham also asked where people without broadband at home could go to take advantage of the service. In fact, 93 per cent. of public libraries offer broadband internet connection—100 per
  496
  cent. in Northern Ireland. The People's Network has been most effective in putting almost every public library online and the great majority offer broadband access. In addition, much of the network of 6,000 UK online centres, which includes libraries, has adopted broadband. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are also commercial initiatives to establish kiosks in post offices.
  Mr. Key: Villages throughout the country, including Great Wishford and South Newton in my constituency, are addressing the homework problem, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred, by using the village hall, holding clubs at weekends and two or three times a week for that purpose.
  Mr. Timms: That is an important point and I welcome such initiatives, which have social advantages as well as extending the benefits of technology.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made a powerful case for the importance of broadband in rural areas. I entirely agree with the points that he made. The competitiveness benefits are crucial for businesses in rural areas. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that, even after all the published trigger levels have been reached, there will still be areas without broadband. I understand that BT expects to have published trigger levels for exchanges by the summer. Once they have all been met, the availability of ADSL will reach about 90 per cent., but, even then, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, 10 per cent. of households will not have access.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing about rural broadband. I am establishing a rural broadband team in the DTI, to work with DEFRA and the RDAs to address the issue. Much activity on broadband is already under way. Reference has already been made to the £30 million fund established by the DTI, and I can give the House a couple of examples of its use.
  The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to broadband brokerage in the east of England. The project was set up in June 2002 to allow people and companies to register their interest in broadband on a website. I gather that Diss and Felaw Maltings will be the first communities to obtain broadband through that scheme. The idea is that once demand in an area has reached a particular threshold a partnership is established with a local authority to form a community network. Service providers are then approached to identify the most cost-effective solution for the community.
  Buckfastleigh in Devon is demonstrating how broadband can be brought into key facilities in a rural town. Broadband demonstration centres are being set up in Scotland. The point is not that we believe that we can solve all the problems with that £30 million but that, through those pilots, we can develop and demonstrate solutions that can be much more widely applied once they have been properly assessed and understood.
  There is certainly much more to do. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked about the attractiveness of a universal service obligation for broadband. We have considered that, although it is not yet justified. For example, in places where broadband is available—even

  497
  in London, where take-up is highest—the figure is still only about 10 per cent. If we were to impose a universal service obligation for broadband, it would impose significant costs on all customers and we have not yet reached the point where the scale of take-up, where the service is available, is sufficiently high to warrant the imposition of such costs on everybody. With things moving so quickly, however, that position may change. Certainly, we need to keep the question under review in the months ahead.
  Satellite is a viable alternative for businesses in rural areas, and there are a number of examples of satellite-based broadband solutions being used successfully by businesses, including in business centres, in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) presided recently at a public meeting on broadband options, which I notice included a welcoming contribution from Sir Alan Ayckbourn—the meeting took place at the Stephen Joseph theatre in Scarborough. A presentation was made by Aramiska, a satellite broadband service provider, which meets the needs of businesses in Yorkshire. For many businesses, satellite will be the best and easiest way to access services. There have been many examples of regional development agencies helping to defray the costs of satellite broadband access, which, as was pointed out, is quite expensive. The South East England Development Agency has enabled a number of businesses in Hastings to gain access to satellite broadband services, and the scheme is being extended across the region. Other RDAs are doing similar things.
  Will wireless technology be a solution? Yes, again, I think it will be. I hope that, for example, when a school is broadband-enabled, it may be possible for a wireless antenna to be erected, perhaps even at the school, for the broadband provision supporting the school to be used also to provide backhaul for a wireless broadband service, using the antenna based at the school. A variety of approaches of that kind will be needed, but that might be one way in which a community around a school could be broadband-enabled through wireless, taking advantage of the investment that we are making.
  Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for the comments that he has just made. Will he go further, however, and consider the absence of any obligation on the public services to have regard for community provision? Will he—I was going to say, "issue an edict"—put an obligation on the public services that when they install broadband in schools, libraries or anywhere else, they should have regard to making it available for the rest of the community? That would be a huge step forward.
  Mr. Timms: That will be precisely the aim of the ministerial broadband steering group to which I referred in my opening remarks. It will bring together the Ministers responsible from all the Departments, and its aim will be to ensure that the investment that is being made on behalf of public services is managed in a way that opens up access to other users too. The way in which that can happen is well illustrated by the project being taken forward by Advantage West Midlands, which I described. It has set up a special purpose vehicle,
  498
  separate from the RDA, that is commissioning a broadband network for all the schools and universities in the region, enabling the network provided to be opened up to other users too. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could give a commitment that, in every village that has a school, the broadband connection will be available to the wider community. I think that it will be clear from what I have said that that is exactly our aim. I cannot give a date by which that will happen, but I will certainly welcome opportunities to update the House on progress as we take the work forward.
  Brian White: People often say that data protection issues create a barrier to community use of facilities. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Information Commissioner is involved in those discussions and ensures that there is best practice guidance so that data protection does not become such an issue?
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. With networks used, for example, to send electronic patient records around the health service, he is absolutely right to suggest that such issues need to be addressed carefully. They certainly will be.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) also made a thoughtful contribution, but there was one point on which I did not agree with him. I think he said that 90 per cent. of broadband is from BT. However, on the latest figures, there are 1.9 million broadband connections in the UK, 1 million of which are cable modem connections and just over 900,000 of which are ADSL. The hon. Member for Blaby pointed out that only half the ADSL are bought from BT Retail. The rest are bought from companies such as AOL, Freeserve and Pipex. I understand that, according to some estimates, about 300 retailers of ADSL products use the BT Wholesale ADSL product. It is then retailed by someone else.
  I was pleased that the hon. Member for Blaby was able to compliment the South West of England Regional Development Agency on the work that it is taking forward. I agree with him. I have been impressed by what I have seen of its work. I am glad that he was able to refer to NTL's enthusiasm for wireless broadband, and I am aware that NTL has been keen on using the 10 GHz part of the spectrum. As I have said, I think that wireless will prove to be important.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me a question that has come up several times. Will it be possible to have commercial traffic running over public sector networks? We will ensure that in delivering connections to, for example, a village primary school we make affordable backhaul available for broadband services that can be used by other businesses and households. That is the central task on which the ministerial group will be working on. The hon. Gentleman used the term piggybacking. It is right that, if a substantial investment is made, we need to ensure that other users benefit without compromising the needs of public service users. They need to be met properly.
  The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked why different trigger levels are set for different exchanges. That is a commercial matter for BT, but one of the reasons for that is that the costs of backhaul differ

  499
  markedly depending on where the exchange is. In some exchanges in remote areas, a substantial investment is needed to provide the backhaul into the main network. In other exchanges, the cost of that part of the upgrading is much less. That is the big differentiator in the costs of upgrading.
  Mr. Key: I have been in the House for some time. May I remind the Minister that one of the principal problems encountered when the Central Electricity Generating Board controlled access to three phase electricity throughout rural areas was that it said that a factory in a remote village would have to pay all the upstream charges for upgrading the lines all the way back to the board's generating station? That could cost a small company £25,000. Anyone else that came in then received the provision free. That was unfair and outrageous; thank goodness, it does not happen any more. There is a parallel and we need to be careful.
  Mr. Timms: It sounds a very interesting parallel, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
  I was pleased that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire did not chide me for not having yet made my visit to Bottisham; I am looking forward to doing so in the near future. He referred to the East of England Development Agency grant funding, but I do not think that we should look to such initiatives to deal with problems in the long term and as pilots to work out how to do things. We need to move towards normal commercial arrangements in rural areas, just as in urban areas, so that we provide the services that businesses and others need so much.
  The hon. Member for Blaby and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East made interesting comparisons with the way in which things operate in other countries. Germany certainly has many more broadband connections than in the United Kingdom. However, as they pointed out, Deutsche Telekom has 90 per cent. of the market in Germany and prices there are drifting up and the growth of the German broadband installed base is very slow at present. Prices in the United Kingdom are coming down—they are already lower than those in Germany—and growth is very fast. My opposite number in Germany was keen to find out more about how we are managing matters in the UK because he wants more competition in the German market. There is no doubt that that is the way forward.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East mentioned the Communications Bill a couple of times. It will give Ofcom the new role of supporting—innovation—and—investment in
  500
  communications networks and services, and I agree with those who spoke about the critical role that Ofcom will play in the months ahead. I have very high expectations of Ofcom under the leadership of Lord Currie and its chief executive Stephen Carter, who was formerly with NTL.
  I am grateful to all hon. Members who participated in this important debate. There is a significant economic challenge for the UK. We have identified ways to address the challenges, especially by ensuring that rural areas throughout the UK, as well as urban areas, will have the benefit of broadband services. I hope that I made clear the Government's determination to address those challenges and that hon. Members will follow progress in the critical few months ahead with great interest.
  Keith Hill: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITION

  Pharmacies
  5.11 pm
  Ian Stewart: On 1 May, as we celebrate the sixth year since the magnificent Labour victory in 1997, I present a petition signed by about 2,100 of my constituents. It says that the Office of Fair Trading's proposals for the unrestricted opening of pharmacies that are able to dispense national health service prescriptions will have a serious and detrimental effect on pharmacies and the communities that they serve.
  Local community pharmacies play an important role in our communities, and their clinical involvement is recognised in the Government's NHS plan. They play a much wider role in our local communities than most people think, even to the extent that my local pharmacy will take prescriptions to the houses of people who are disabled, infirm or elderly. That provides a further contact for those people, who are sometimes dislocated in their communities.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of the constituents of Eccles to 'Save our Pharmacy Services', signed by 2,100 people,
  Declares that we, the undersigned, urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities,
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Christopher's Hospice (Guildford)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Keith Hill.]
  5.14 pm
  Sue Doughty: 1 am glad to have the opportunity to debate such an important issue. It must be the lot of all newly elected Members to wonder why good causes do not get the support that they are promised and deserve. We secure Adjournment debates that may result in a new way forward or merely provide the Minister with another opportunity to tell us how much is being done while failing to deal with the core issue that gave rise to the debate in the first place. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions, deal with the realities of the situation and give a strong commitment to resolve the problems that Christopher's faces along with other children's hospices.
  Christopher's is a hospice for life-limited children. It is based in Guildford and run by CHASE, the children's hospice service. It is a regional centre for palliative care, providing support to children and their families in an area that includes south and south-west London, Surrey and West Sussex. It is a special place for the children and their families. The Minister will understand that as time is limited, I cannot describe all the services that it provides or the sort of place that it is, but I hope that he will accept an invitation to visit the hospice to see for himself the work that is being done.
  CHASE currently provides support in the community and at the hospice for 160 families. Its target is to support 300 families that are spread across 25 primary care trusts and those local authorities that have responsibility for children's services. The hospice is a success. It was built at a cost of £3.8 million with enormous fundraising support from the community, which it continues to receive. It opened its doors in November 2001, around the same time that PCTs were beginning to find their own way with their budgets.
  Like any facility in the south-east, the hospice faces the usual problems in the health service of recruitment and retention of staff, a shortage of children's nurses, which is a specialised field, and difficulty with finding accommodation in the area. Fortunately, we have had some help from St. Faith's charity to mitigate that because medical staff at Christopher's do not qualify for key-worker housing. Five out of the nine beds are occupied and that will rise to seven in July. One must ask, however, when free nursing care will be provided for life-limited children.
  The Minister will be aware that it is easier to obtain corporate support for the capital costs for building a hospice than it is for the running costs of any charity. Indeed, there has been a downturn in charity funding as a result of the downturn in the stock market. Money is in short supply. Although CHASE receives money from the New Opportunities Fund, that covers only 10 per cent. of its running costs for each of the next three years and has to cover its community services, palliative care, respite care and the end-of-life services. Will the Minister confirm that lottery money will not replace Government money for essential health care?
  Christopher's receives no national health funding as such. It got money for three children to receive palliative care while their houses were being adjusted, but that is
  502
  all. The hospice and CHASE do not expect the NHS to pick up all the running costs. It provides a special service, which is the nature of hospices, that is outside what people would expect of the NHS. But Christopher's works hard with local families and works on a regional basis to ensure that services are not duplicated. It supports families when they face enormous stress. That support is important for a family with a child who may be dying because many families break up when a child dies. Christopher's keeps those families functioning.
  There are costs of care that Christopher's meets which, under other circumstances, would be met by the health service. It pays fees to the local doctors' surgery for two named doctors to visit part time four times a week and for call-out services. That ensures continuity so that the families and doctors know one another when the children visit or stay there. At the moment, that costs £48,000 a year and we expect a substantial increase next year, but we must remember that that is for a national health service.
  The problem is not new. I have raised it since I was elected. Indeed, back in the 1980s the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), in her capacity as Health Minister, said:
  "The Government's objective is to work towards a position in which the contribution from public funds available to voluntary hospices and similar organisations matches that of voluntary giving. This will provide a clear basis to plan ahead."—[Official Report, 15 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 847W.]
  That funding did not become available.
  In a debate in 2001 the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said that children's hospices receive, on average, only 5 per cent. of their running costs. Christopher's does not even get that. As I have pointed out in the House on other occasions, the NHS saves money through the work of Christopher's. When a child leaves the Royal Marsden hospital, possibly at the end of its life, freeing up a place for another child, the funding for that child stops, but the child's health needs do not.
  Last year—51 weeks ago in fact—having followed up this issue on behalf of CHASE, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and I met the then Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). That was a useful meeting, but another year has passed. We explained why primary care trusts do not fund children's hospices: there might be 25 trusts covering 160 children using the services in a population of 3 million. The Minister understood that hospices cannot go to PCTs for funding for just one or two children in the area. We agreed that children's hospices should be regionally based to use resources wisely, so as not to duplicate. Indeed, CHASE sited Christopher's in Guildford so that it could be the provider for the region, riot just for the town.
  The hospice had its formal, royal opening last October, and having heard nothing after the meeting, I wrote in November to the Minister of State responsible for children's health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith). It took until March to get a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears). She stated that funding is available from the PCTs, which are responsible for delivering services locally. It is as if none of that correspondence made any difference. A London PCT will not pay for a child in Guildford—that is a fact.

  503
  Thankfully, the number of life-limited children in any PCT area is likely to be small. We do not even know how many there are. However, CHASE has approached trusts, and it does not get an answer. With so few children, the costs do not even register on their budget lines. The Under-Secretary suggested in her letter that
  "funds are available for disabled children through local authorities. Respite care breaks can be funded through the carer's grant and the quality protects programme."
  However, the carer's grant supports carers, not hospices. There is no mechanism to take that money and pay a hospice for respite care. The grant deals with AIDS facilities and others. The website for the quality protects programme says nothing about hospices. We escalated the matter by making inquiries, and got a very nice e-mail in reply. It does not mention hospices, and it does not answer our question, "Can you fund hospice care?" All that we have is the new opportunities fund.
  Both Christopher's and CHASE are brilliantly run by first-rate people. The chief executive of Christopher's knows exactly what he is doing, and the chair of the trustees knows exactly what she is doing. The fundraising goes on, and we are fortunate that it does. We should be able to expect money from the cancer plan, but we will not get cancer cash. The good news for the children is that most of them get better or die from other conditions, so it is no good our looking to the cancer plan for funding.
  The first child who died in Christopher's was Matthew Ashton of Camberley. He died of a brain tumour on 5 January 2002. Eight days before, just after Christmas, he came from the Royal Marsden hospital, which could do nothing more for him medically. He needed 24-hour morphine, and he came to Christopher's. He was visited by Gianfranco Zola, which was lovely for him and the hospice. That visit was very much appreciated and it made a lot of difference to everyone. His family were able to stay, and because Christopher's has special facilities for the care of children after they have died, the family stayed a further eight days so that other family and friends could come and say goodbye to him in the Mistral suite. However, when Matthew left the Royal Marsden, even though he needed 24-hour care, the NHS funding stopped, as it did for the five children receiving end-of-life care who died in March this year.
  It has been suggested that we wait for the national service framework for children. There is a subcommittee for children with disabilities on which the Association of Children's Hospices has one representative, so no doubt the report will contain a short paragraph; but will it deliver any funding? It appears that the care of dying children is not important enough to be funded by the taxpayer. What do the Government plan to do about funding the health care of dying children?
  I want to know how the initiatives described in the letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford, will deliver the funds for that health care. We cannot find out. Are there case studies to show how it happens? The Association of Children's Hospices cannot see it happening and we cannot find anything. We want to know how much longer children's hospices have to wait until they are told what is available, while in reality little is received. I want to know why children in hospices do not receive free nursing care.
  504
  How can I explain to all those people who raised £2 million for CHASE last year that the Government are not prepared to fund the health care of dying children? I want an assurance that their motives are not cynical. Is it because those people are good fund raisers and CHASE raises money itself that we do not get national health service money? I hope not, because that would be an insult to those hard-working fund raisers.
  In using such phrases, it is not my intention to play a big emotional card—that would be easy, but wrong—but we do not seem to be making our case. Ahead of the debate, I made it clear to the Minister's office that I need real answers. I do not want a recitation of the good works of the Government—we have had that, and it is not working. I am not here to score political points. All I want to know is what support the Government plan to provide for the health care of the children at Christopher's.
  5.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on securing this debate on an issue that is of concern to her and to many hon. Members, and on the great sincerity and tremendous vigour with which she pursues it. I am well aware of the excellent services provided by children's hospices, especially the hospice to which she refers. My constituency is served by the Haven House hospice in Waltham Forest, and we are grateful for all the good work that hospices do. As the hon. Lady would expect, the Government are absolutely committed to helping children with life-threatening illnesses and we value and support the tremendous contribution made by the hospice movement.
  This is a complicated area and there is much to say. Children with life-threatening conditions need a very special form of care. First and foremost, they are children and they want to behave and be treated like other children, but the care should be tailored to the individual nature of the illness, its progression and the variety of individual family circumstances and preferences. All those factors are relevant to the support that is offered. We as a Government have long recognised that respite, short-break care is essential, as it allows the family time to rest and enables them to continue to care for the ill child, siblings and themselves. It also brings the opportunity for peer socialising for children and young people, which can be difficult to access elsewhere.
  We also know that the death of a child is the most devastating experience any parent can have. How children die, how they are supported in their dying and the quality of after-death care have a major impact on how families cope with their grief. Children and families have individual needs that should be recognised; they should be afforded time and space and treated with respect and dignity. Hospices can have a major role in all of this, from the overall approach to the care pathway, to the smaller but individually life-enhancing elements of care.
  The way in which the hospice movement has evolved means that buildings are quite often put in place before discussions have been held about how the services will be supported. We must ensure that there is more synergy between capital funding and revenue funding.

  505
  The hon. Lady will know that the first children's hospice came about in about 1982. We have had 20 years of children's hospices, and more are being built. We have more than 20 now. More are being built because good local people come together and want to provide. They want a charitable facility. Important discussions about ongoing revenue are essential and vital, so there is a complicating factor in this relatively new hospice development.
  We are aware of the difficulties and have been working with and supporting the Association for Children with Life-Threatening and Terminal Conditions and their Families in producing guidance on effective approaches to providing the range of palliative care that is necessary. We also have a continuing dialogue with the Association of Children's Hospices, which is enormously helpful as many hospices, as I have explained, are in their infancy, and developing. Some are only a year or so away from their official opening. That is one reason why the funding base for children's hospices has not been well embedded.
  In terms of securing health funding, it is for primary care trusts to negotiate locally what sort of services are needed in their communities. To do so, they must have a genuine relationship with the voluntary sector to see how those services can be provided. There must be a proper discussion at local level that relates to funding decisions. I urge hospices to get into that discussion—both those established and those in planning—with their PCT partners and their strategic health authorities.
  Sue Doughty: CHASE has attempted to contact all its PCTs but they do not reply, even to letters.
  Mr. Lammy: The Department of Health would look into any issue where a health provider had written a letter and had not received a reply.
  I say with as much sincerity as I can that the Department has rightly come to the conclusion that it cannot attempt to run the entire health service from Whitehall. As the hon. Lady knows, we have localised down to primary care trusts and to strategic health authorities. At the same time—this is different from the context in which she has raised these matters in the past—we have said to PCTs, "We have increased your allocations"—that is the fact—"way beyond inflation, between 7 and 9 per cent. You have this money for three years. You can now plan your cycle or journey, as it were, with different health providers over a range of issues for three years." That is a difference.
  Of course, primary care trusts are coming out of their infancy as new organisations and are clustering together. Strategic health authorities are taking an interest. That must be the right position. I am not saying that it is perfect, but what I have outlined must be the starting premise. Alongside that, as I shall explain, the national service framework for children and the work that we hope to do next year are vital, as they raise the game, concentrating the minds of people in primary care trusts and strategic health authorities on what they are doing and the standards that are in place. We are on a journey, but the funding that has been provided through the New Opportunities Fund adds up nationally to
  506
  £14 million just on palliative care awards to hospices. In addition, there is the national service framework, a three-year period of funding, and an increase in funding, so I am sincere in saying we are in a stronger position in this area than we have been for some time.
  To get the most out of palliative care services for children, we need to remember what makes them different. The ideal is to have a range of services available that recognise that children's palliative care is unique because it is part of the journey of care and therefore of life, and not the end stage, as it is for adults. It is as much about the quality of living as the quality of dying. It is not just "what you do when nothing else is left". It should be part of the care provided as soon as it is clear that a child or young person has a life-threatening or life-limiting illness. It requires a comprehensive approach for the child and family, and challenges all patient and professional services to develop a wider understanding that palliative care is an active approach to management.
  That adds up to the need for real partnership, based on honest and open communication free, I hope, of jargon. Above all, it means thinking intelligently and humanely about the specific needs that a child or family may have, which can only be gained through partnership. That is the premise from which we start in the Department. That is what we are pushing and it is the thrust of the national service framework. It is the challenge in palliative care for children to which we expect our PCTs and strategic health authorities to step up. Partnerships need to focus more on areas where provision has been difficult in the past because of geographical spread. The hon. Lady will know that the desire of good people to open a children's hospice is such that there may be neighbouring hospices or hospices with a wide geographical spread. The Department of Health has little control over the demography of children's hospices, but we have to respond nevertheless to the need for tailored support for specific illnesses, conditions and age ranges for which there may have been a lack of provision in the past. We must also take into account the needs of minority ethnic communities, whose access to health and social services is less than it should be.
  What needs to be changed to help hospices to secure funding? There are a number of issues, but clearly if any initiative is to be funded, funding must be available to PCTs. If we expect them to take a view on what may be an increasing demand on their resources, we must ensure that they are aware of the potential and the benefits of hospice care. We must also work up a framework to guide and assist positive partnerships. We need to address those issues and I am glad that we can now do so from the strongest position that we have ever occupied. It may not yet be the gold standard that we all desire—the hon. Lady is an active campaigner on the issue—but we are in the strongest position and we have a good foundation. The money that we are providing to hospices through the New Opportunities Fund is also important, and is made available through the work of the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where that money is located, so to speak.

  507
  Hon. Members will recall that in December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced the allocation of £148 billion to primary care trusts over the next three years, as I have outlined. That represents a cash increase of more than 30 per cent., and means that no PCT will receive an increase in funding of less than 28 per cent. over the next three years. From April this year, local PCTs will control over 75 per cent. of the NHS budget, and the average PCT budget will grow over the next three years by almost £42 million.
  Sue Doughty: I hope I am not being too cynical, and I would not want to seem ungrateful for the NOF money—of course we are grateful for it—but from what has been said I am learning that PCTs should be paying towards hospices, but they are not. They have more money, partly from the Department of Health and partly from the lottery, and some of that should be going to the hospices. Are hospices still being funded mainly by lottery money? What about free nursing care? What about nursing care for children when they leave NHS facilities? Does the Department of Health have any direct responsibility?
  Mr. Lammy: The responsibility is that of the national health service. I make a distinction, which is not a mere semantic distinction—it may represent a fundamental difference of position, but I need to articulate it. The hon. Lady referred to the Department of Health. I have made it clear that the £148 billion is not Department of Health money; it has been allocated to primary care trusts.
  There is a great dichotomy. I have responsibility for diabetes, renal failure, pharmacy and dentistry. As the hon. Lady knows, in any health care economy, there are a range of important illnesses and conditions. Primary care trusts, with strategic health authorities providing performance management, must decide how that money is spent in a locality. As a Minister, I can tell the hon. Lady that it would be unusual if I had a meeting in my office and a group interested in a particular health issue did not say to me, "Minister, can you ring-fence the money when it gets down to the primary care trust, so that we know we will get it?"
  Sue Doughty: I understand the point about not ring-fencing money. I am still having difficulty in understanding why a child who dies in a national health hospital has their nursing and medical care paid for, but a child who dies in a hospice from the same illness or renal failure or whatever does not.
  Mr. Lammy: The Department of Health acknowledges that hospices are arriving on the doorsteps of primary care trusts every year. The national service framework is the lever that will bring about change. I said that the Department of Health was not in the business of giving out that £143 billion, but we are in the business of setting clear standards and saying what we expect. I am advised by officials that the children's hospice movement eagerly awaits the national service framework, because it wants those standards as the basis on which to begin a dialogue with the primary care trust and the strategic health authority about the ways in which they can assist hospices.
  508
  I hope that there is not too much distance between us. I understand the hon. Lady's frustration. As a Back Bencher, I raised similar frustrations with regard to my local hospice. My Department's responsibility is to set a clear direction of travel, but the picture today is much better than it has been in the past because of the New Opportunities Fund. The hon. Lady will know that St. Christopher's received £650,000, a significant amount of money, plus
  Sue Doughty: For the record, is the Minister referring to St. Christopher's hospice, which is different from Christopher's hospice?
  Mr. Lammy: The hon. Lady is quite right. Christopher's hospice received £650,000, and the CHASE Children's Hospice Service received £74,000 in bereavement and palliative care awards. The hon. Lady says that that money may be used for capital spending and other costs, and I understand that. The Department expects high standards and we continue to work with children's hospices to support them as best we can. What is said in the House is on the record and is available for the hospice movement and for children's hospices to use when they are discussing such matters with colleagues locally.
  The emerging findings highlight a compelling body of evidence from research and inspection reports that disabled children and their families do not always receive the support that they need. Moreover, there are particular concerns about services for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. More flexible child care and short-term breaks are needed, and more co-ordination is needed in planning. To improve cooperation between social services, the health service, schools and local education authorities, some areas have multi-agency groups at a senior level to plan and commission services. Some groups also involve housing, transport and leisure services to promote inclusion in the community and report to local strategic partnerships.
  The NSF is a 10-year strategy for improving the delivery of health and social services for children and young people, and maternity services. The outcome will be a coherent and integrated approach to services for sick and disabled children. It is already having an impact and that will grow with more funding coming on stream in successive years and the development of a better and more comprehensive understanding of the range and quality of services necessary to support our most vulnerable children and their families.
  I emphasise that we are sincere in our wish to achieve that. I do not think that the distance between the hon. Lady and the Government is too great. In the past, as they have sprung up children's hospices have suffered from a funding lacuna, partly as a result of not being able fully to access ongoing revenue. However, I believe that the money that has been allocated down and the establishment of the NSF and NOF represent a much stronger position than we have been in for some time. Any NSF should project forward 10 years. Throughout the House, we all accept—this is not a party political issue—that there have been historical capacity constraints and issues in the NHS. Today, on May day, only a very short period has passed since the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions, which will feed its way down.

  509
  I believe that through the standards that have been set and the work of patients forums and scrutiny panels at a local level, as well as through the inspection regime that we have introduced, there is a more positive
  510
  environment for the children's hospice movement. I am sure that the hon. Lady will continue to raise the issue, which the Government will continue to take seriously.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Six o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

The Financing of Terrorism in Northern Ireland
[Relevant documents: Fourth Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 978-I, and the Government's response thereto, Sixth Special Report, Session 2001–02, HC 1347.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: I am happy to agree to this adjournment in the special circumstances that we are needed elsewhere. I shall raise a point of order in the Chamber after questions to try to ensure that we have a system that does not put us all in the position of having to adjourn a debate that could more easily be postponed until the important statement is over. In the circumstances, I am happy to agree with the Government's motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Two o'clock.

TREASURY

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many couples that have applied for the child tax credit have opted for payment to(a) the mother and (b) the father. [110938]

  Ruth Kelly
  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

  Earnings
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, columns 606–7W, on average earnings, what assessment he has made of what population base provides reliable New Earnings Survey data for use by the ODPM to calculate area cost adjustment. [109365]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The area cost adjustment is calculated using New Earnings Survey (NES) data. This data contain no information on the size of an areas resident population. Office for National Statistics uses national insurance numbers to select those who participate in the survey.

  The NES does contain information on the area in which the survey respondent lives and in which they work. Information on the area in which the survey respondent works is used in the calculation of the area cost adjustment.

  The area cost adjustment (ACA) has been calculated for each 1991 county in line with the recommendations of the independent Elliott review of the area cost adjustment. The exception to this rule is that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has further refined the ACA geography around London, by acknowledging fringe and non fringe areas in the counties which surround London, and by separating Greater London into four ACA areas.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister calculates the ACA for county areas because we wish to produce robust ACA factors that are stable over time. For individual authorities the NES sample size can be small and small samples can lead to volatility. In reforming the ACA the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has had to strike a balance between more finely reflecting local labour market pressures, by calculating the ACA for smaller areas, and providing stable and robust ACA factors each year.

  Families With Children
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families with children there are in the UK. [110836]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to David Willets, dated 1 April 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning families with children. (110836)
  The number of families with dependent children in the United Kingdom in November 2002 is estimated at 7.2 million.

  Iraq
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 761W, on Iraq, what plans he has to make new funding available to the Department for International Development for humanitarian relief efforts during the conflict. [105253]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the Budget Statement of 9 April, the Chancellor announced the provision of $100 million to support the UN and the work of reconstruction and development in Iraq. This is in addition to the £240 million the Government has already set aside for humanitarian relief. The Government will consider further action as needed, in the context of future developments.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost will be to public funds in 2003–04 of the rise in national insurance contributions on the salary bill of his Department. [107896]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is estimated that the changes to employers' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will increase pay costs on average by 0.7 per cent. this year.

  National Minimum Wage
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, for a couple with one child under 16 and one adult in work for 35 hours a week receiving the National Minimum Wage of £4.50 an hour from April, by how much she estimates the 30p a week increase in the National Minimum Wage will be eroded by(a) the resulting increase in national insurance contributions, (b) the resulting reduction in housing and council tax benefits, (c) the average increase in council tax on band D in London, (d) the average increase in social housing rents by local authorities and (e) the average increase in social housing rents by housing associations in London. [106591]

  Mr. Boateng
  As a result of the increase in the National Minimum Wage to £4.50 and the introduction of the Working and Child Tax credits a couple with one earner working full time on the National Minimum Wage will be £6.93 per week better off in real terms from
  441W
  October 2003 than they were over 2002–03. This includes the impact of the rise in National Insurance Contributions.

  Even after average increases (across England) in rents and Council Tax this family will be £2.39 better off per week. Only some households in these circumstances will be eligible for Housing or Council Tax Benefit.

  Regional Pay
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce regional pay for public services following his announcement that he intended to introduce a regional retail price increase table for all regions. [109362]

  Mr. Boateng
  Remits for pay review bodies and for public sector workers, including the civil service, will in future include a stronger local and regional dimension.

  Further details will be announced in the coming months.

TRANSPORT

  Air Transport (Consultation)
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the effect of planning blight on domestic properties as a result of the National Consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the UK. [110362]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Prior to the publication of the airports' consultation documents last year, we consulted a number of departments, including the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We will continue a dialogue within Government in the run-up to the Air Transport White Paper.

  Car Clubs
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if the Government will establish a challenge fund for local authorities for car clubs; [110934]

  (2) what plans the Department has for undertaking further research into the effectiveness of car clubs; [110932]

  (3) what encouragement the Department is giving to local authorities within its guidance for developing local transport plans for the support of car clubs; and what (a) financial and (b) other support the Department is giving to local authorities for (i) promotion and (ii) development of car clubs. [110933]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport announced the Government's response to the Motorist's Forum's Report on car sharing and car clubs on 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 72WS. The response outlined the work and further support it will give in this field.

  The response was placed in the Libraries of the House and is also available on DfT's website at http://www local-transport.dft.gov.uk/travelplans/mforum/index.htm.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact upon CO2 emissions in 2010 of his revised forecast that car fuel costs will drop by 30 per cent.over the present decade, rather than the 20 per cent. assumption in the original 10 year transport plan. [110074]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In our revised forecasts, fuel costs in 2010 (measured in pence per km driven) are forecast to be only 1 per cent lower than assumed for 2010 in the original 10 Year Plan. This is estimated to increase CO2 by approximately 0.1 MtC in 2010.

  It should be noted that the forecast drop in car fuel costs between 2000 and 2010 of 30 per cent., compared with 20 per cent. forecast in the original 10 year Transport Plan has arisen from two main factors. The first is that the actual base year (2000) fuel price was higher than that originally estimated (although this has no direct impact on 2010 costs) and secondly, that the forecast for fuel duty, which takes into account changes since 2000, will be lower. The underlying forecast for car fuel efficiency improvements remains unchanged.

  Civil Service (People with Disabilities)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in the Department. [110529]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport currently has 0.1 per cent. of senior civil servants (SCS) with a disability. Following last year's machinery of government changes, we are yet to revise the former DTLR diversity targets for DfT. However, we are reviewing this, and are working with two other departments on work they are doing on modelling for setting targets for under-represented groups in the senior civil service and below. It is expected that a model will be in place by the summer. In addition to this, we propose to undertake a disability resurvey of all our staff later in the year.

  We are engaged in a number of measures and initiatives to help increase the representation of disabled people in more senior posts. The Department advertises open competition vacancies in media targeted at disabled people eg Disability Now, and Ready, Willing and Able as well as other medium. We also operate a guaranteed interview scheme (commonly known as "Two Ticks") whereby all disabled applicants meeting the minimum criteria for advertised posts are guaranteed an interview.

  The Department is a corporate sponsor of the Employers Forum on Disability, and has a contract with disability consultants to advise on disability issues including ways in which we might increase the representation of disabled people within the Department.

  We are continuing to support the Cabinet Office Disability Bursary Scheme, and are providing central funding for two successful applicants on the 2003 scheme. We also ran a short career development workshop for disabled staff in 2000 and 2001. We are offering work placements to disabled graduates in the summer to undertake specific high level projects, and

  443W
  will continue to monitor the progress of these measures, and consider additional initiatives to help bring about an increase in the proportion of disabled staff at senior levels.

  District Line
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investments have been made in the District Line in each of the last six years. [110459]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. London Underground, however, advise that the following has been invested in the District Line:

  £ million

  1997–98

  49.5

  1998–99

  64.4

  1999–2000

  61.5

  2000–01

  77.5

  2001–02

  101.2

  2002–03

  84.9

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department was in 2002. [101538]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The cost of ministerial cars and drivers for the Department will be addressed in a letter from Mr. Nick Matheson, the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to the hon. Member.

  Taxis may be used for a variety of reasons, including disability, personal safety or when it is more cost effective to do so. The cost of taxis to my Department during 2002 was 55079.70. This figure is for the period 1 April to 31 December 2002 and is inclusive of all types of taxi services. My Department does not hold information on the cost of the different types, e.g black cabs or minicabs. The period 1 January to 31 March 2002 was for the predecessor Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions and the cost of taxis was not kept separately from other travel costs.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the estimated cost is in 2003–04 to her Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible of the increase in the national minimum wage from £4.20 per hour to £4.50 per hour. [110445]

  Dr. Howells
  There would be no increase in paybill costs in DCMS and the Royal Parks Agency because all staff are paid at a higher hourly rate than the £4.50 per hour national minimum wage.
  444W
  DCMS does not hold central paybill records for non-departmental public bodies. To provide this information could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Pill Boxes
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the pill boxes which are being reviewed as part of English Heritage's Monuments Protection programme. [1088791

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage is carrying out a review of World War II anti-invasion structures, including pill boxes. This review is at an early stage, and there is no definitive list yet of the pill boxes which will be recommended for scheduling as part of the Monuments Protection programme.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many and what grades of officials are responsible for the monitoring of progress towards the public service agreement targets of her Department. [109475]

  Dr. Howells
  Monitoring progress towards the Department's PSA targets is undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff in her Department were on long-term sick leave in each of the last five years. [109246]

  Dr. Howells
  Assuming long-term sick leave is defined as 90 days and over, the numbers of DCMS staff on long-term sick leave in each of the last five calendar years was:

  Number

  1998

  6

  1999

  3

  2000

  5

  2001

  5

  2002

  7

  DCMS is committed to managing sickness absence effectively, and in meeting the 2003 target for reduced sickness absence, as set out in the Service Delivery Agreement.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the salary bill was for special advisers in her Department in 2002–03; and what it is expected to be in 2003–04. [108501]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 24 April 2003,Official Report, column 45W, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

DEFENCE

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to address the issue of age discrimination. [109442]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence employs some 90,000 Civil Servants, and it is departmental policy that individuals should not be discriminated against on any grounds, including age. We will be keeping our policy under review against the background of any changes in the law relating to age that may result from the implementation of the EC Employment Directive. The armed forces have an exemption from the age (and disability) provisions of the Article 13 Directive.

  Armed Forces Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlie the decisions about how MOD houses are graded; if he will make a statement on the differences between the four grades; and which grades are suitable to house service personnel. [110467]

  Dr. Moonie
  All Service Families Accommodation (SFA) is Graded in accordance with the Ministry of Defence's 4-Tier Grading system. The Grading system takes into account the size and condition of the SFA plus environmental factors such as aircraft noise and distance from amenities. All Grades of SFA are used to house Service personnel.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MoD houses are empty; how many have been empty for more than six months; and if he will make a statement. [110468]

  All services

  1 April 1997

  1 April 1998

  1 April 1999

  1 April 2000

  1 Apri1 2001

  1 April 2002

  1 March 2003

  Surplus/Deficit

  -8,320

  -8,190

  -8,100

  -7,740

  -9,440

  -9,030

  -6,570

  Naval service

  Surplus/Deficit

  -1,230

  -1,460

  -1,620

  -990

  -1,360

  -1,690

  -920

  Army

  Surplus/Deficit

  -4,840

  -4,890

  -5,370

  -6,060

  -6,600

  -6,560

  -5,110

  Royal Air Force

  Surplus/Deficit

  -2,250

  -1,850

  -1,120

  -690

  -1,490

  -790

  -550

  Note:

  All Figures are rounded to the nearest 10, totals may not equal the sum of the parts

  These figures exclude:

  Trained Personnel in the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service, full and part time), Army Reservists mobilised for service, RAF Reservists mobilised for service, Gibraltar Permanent Cadre and Naval Activated Reservists.

  These figures include:

  Trained UK Regular Forces, Full Time Reserve Service Personnel (FTRS) and Trained Gurkhas.

  Benefits (Service Families)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures are in place to provide spouses of army personnel with(a) maternity benefit, (b) jobseeker's allowance, (c) disability allowance and (d) advice on how to seek these benefits, when they are living or have been living abroad; and if he will make a statement. [110389]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) issue pamphlet GL26, which gives specific advice on benefits and allowances for Service families moving overseas. Claims are dealt with through the
  446W
  Dr. Moonie
  It is assumed that this question relates to Service family housing in mainland United Kingdom, which is managed by the Defence Housing Executive (DHE). At the end of March 2003, there were 8,161 empty properties, including about 2,000 which the Services have requested DHE hold back from disposal, depending on resolution of Service deployment uncertainties.

  Of the total vacant, some 2,880 had been empty for six months or more, of which 937 were in the course of disposal, and 1,399 were awaiting planned deployments or refurbishment. The remainder are subject to a rolling review of their long-term retention.

  Armed Forces Recruitment
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Department's recruitment campaign for the armed services; and what the shortfall in manpower was in each year since 1997. [110029]

  Dr. Moonie
  Overall armed forces recruitment is holding up well. After 11 months of the current Financial Year, the number of new recruits had reached 24,290 representing 96 per cent. of the overall recruiting target. This compares with 95 per cent. in FY 2001–02 and 90 per cent. in FY 2000–01. However, we are not complacent; we recognise that the overall achievement masks recruiting shortfalls in some critical employment groups.

  The following table provides details of shortfalls in trained strength by individual Service as at 1 April for years 1997 to 2002 along with the current shortfall (as at 1 March 2003).

  DWP Newcastle office which has a help line; and the availability of the help line is published to Service families. There are also advice leaflets available through British Forces Post Offices overseas. Service welfare organisations will also provide advice to families.

  The procedures for claiming benefits are set by the Department of Work and Pensions, and will depend upon the benefit being claimed and the circumstances of the individual. The ability to claim benefits overseas will also depend upon the country being visited. There are specific rules for European Economic Area (EEA) countries and there are also a number of two way social security agreements with other countries.
  447W
  In the case of maternity allowance, if the individual is going to an EEA country and is a United Kingdom or EEA national and is already in receipt of maternity allowance, they can continue to receive it while abroad. If going to a non-EEA country, they may be able to get maternity allowance if a two-way social security agreement exists covering maternity benefit. In other cases, the Ministry of Defence will make an ex-gratia payment equivalent to maternity allowance for accompanying Servicemen's wives when all the relevant qualifying criteria are met.

  Jobseeker's allowance can be claimed when moving to an EEA country if all the criteria are met. However, it is not payable in countries outside the EEA. In some cases, it is possible to use UK national insurance contributions to claim an unemployment benefit in countries that have two-way social security agreements with the UK.

  Disability living allowance is normally payable for as long as the applicant can be treated as 'ordinarily resident" in Great Britain. It is not payable where the family has severed links with Great Britain and has no plans to return, or where a severely disabled child born abroad has not established ordinary residence in Great Britain. In practice, members of most Service families stationed overseas would be treated as ordinarily resident in Great Britain.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what standards have been set for the rapid resolution of benefit claims by Service families; and whether there are complaints procedures available for cases that have resulted in the undue delay of such benefits. [110391]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has a target to process claims for jobseeker's allowance within 12 days. This applies to all claims, including those made by Service families. If there are delays, DWP will consider complaints and claims for compensation which should, in the first instance, be made to the local DWP office. Complaints can also be made by e-mailing Jobcentre Plus via the website at: jobcentreplus.gov.uk or using the "How Do I Complain?" leaflet available at any Jobcentre Plus Office. Service authorities will provide assistance to Service families as necessary in cases where there is dispute over entitlement to a benefit.

  Civil Contingencies
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research work is conducted into(a) civil contingency planning and (b) anti-terrorist measures; which Department is responsible; what funds are allocated; who sets the research priorities; and if he will make a statement. [110544]

  Mr. Ingram
  Lead responsibility for counter-terrorism and civil contingency planning in the United Kingdom rests with the Home Office. Along with many other Government Departments and Agencies, the Ministry of Defence provides support to that planning, drawing upon a wide range of relevant scientific and military expertise. Scientific research funded from the Defence budget supports the development of a number of military capabilities applicable to counter-terrorism,448W
  as described in "The Strategic Defence Review: A New Chapter" (Command 5566) presented to Parliament on 18 July 2002.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the 2002 annual report of the Department will be published. [107868]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's annual report is published each autumn and covers the previous financial year. The annual report for 2001–02 was published on 22 November 2002. We plan to publish the report for 2002–03 in October of this year. A summary of the Department's performance against its Public Service Agreement at the mid-year point will be included in the Government's defence expenditure plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06 to be published by 16 May in common with all other spring departmental reports.

  European Amphibious Initiative
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what developments have been made regarding the European Amphibious Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [109082]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the inception of the European Amphibious Initiative (EAI) at the end of December 2000, progress has been made in determining doctrine, concepts, and procedures—although opportunities to conduct a dedicated EAI exercise have been limited.

  Work to date has centred on a structured series of Steering and Working Group meetings between the Naval staffs of the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Additionally there is a more tactical level annual EAI Seminar, followed by an Amphibious Force Commanders' conference.

  It was planned to use Exercise Destined Glory 02, a NATO amphibious exercise in the Mediterranean, to test the practical implementation of evolving concepts and other work, but the commitment of the Royal Marines to operations in Afghanistan meant that UK participation was greatly reduced. Since then continuing high operational tempo has made it impossible to plan a further exercise.

  At the most recent Steering Group Meeting, member nations resolved to take the initiative forward, and the aim, operational commitments permitting, is to hold an EAI exercise in 2004.

  European Security and Defence Identity
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy objectives for a European security and defence identity. [110795]

  Mr. Hoon
  The European Security and Defence Identity was initiated within NATO to enable European Allies to make a more coherent and effective contribution to the missions and activities of the Alliance and to respond to European requirements. In addition to its objective to improve European military capabilities, it recognised the European Union's resolve, supported by the United Kingdom Government, to
  449W
  have a capacity for autonomous action so that it could take decisions and approve military action when the Alliance as whole was not engaged. Our policy is for NATO and the EU to be strategic partners in crisis management and the development of military capabilities. This partnership is underpinned by the recent implementation of the 'Berlin Plus' arrangements through which the EU has assured access to NATO planning capabilities and a presumption of availability of NATO common assets and capabilities. This will ensure that the EU's European Security and Defence Policy continues to develop in a manner that is supportive of, and supported by, NATO.

  Iraq
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the provenance of the missile which hit the al-Nassar market in the Shula area of Baghdad. [108013]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no evidence to suggest that allied weapons caused the damage in the al-Nassar market in the Shula area of Baghdad. The crater in the market place is inconsistent with that normally created by an air-to-ground missile. Moreover the nearest target attacked by coalition aircraft at the time of the explosion was some 8 km away from the market.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment the Government have made of the likely time scale for the administering and governance of Iraq to be put into the hands of the Iraqi people and the total withdrawal of coalition forces. [110348]

  Mr. Hoon
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at the Hillsborough summit, our aim is for Iraqis to take charge of the administration and Government of Iraq as soon as possible. The process of establishing a transitional Government, representing all Iraq's ethnic groups, regions and diaspora, began with the National Dialogue Conference on 15 April 2003. It is impossible to know with certainty precisely how long this process will take. We anticipate that coalition forces will remain in Iraq as long as their presence is necessary to help the Iraqi people in the political and economic reconstruction of their country.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have for the total withdrawal of British forces from Iraq. [110350]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our Military Campaign Objectives contain a commitment to withdrawal of British military forces from Iraq as soon as is practicable. It is too early at this stage to predict when the appropriate circumstance will arise to allow a full withdrawal. We will maintain an appropriate military presence in Iraq as long as is necessary to enable the conditions within which the Iraqis can get their country running effectively, politically and economically.

  We have kept the House fully informed of deployments to the middle east and of subsequent withdrawals of forces from the region. We will continue to keep deployments to the region under review and will keep the House informed of future withdrawals.

  Military Training
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment his Department has made of environmental damage to(a) Woodbury Common, (b) Dartmoor and (c) Salisbury plain training areas caused by military exercises. [109637]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has always been committed to minimising any environmental damage caused by our training activities, an approach which has now been formalised through the Defence Estate Strategy and taken forward through the implementation of ISO 14001, the Environmental Management System.

  A wide variety of military training activity is undertaken on Woodbury Common, Dartmoor and Salisbury Plain Training Areas and specific surveys of the environmental impacts of this military training are carried out as part of Departmental management plans. As part of existing management plans, recent surveys have been undertaken to ensure environmental impacts are managed within agreed limits in consultation with statutory bodies.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mechanisms are in place for monitoring the payment of national insurance by families of soldiers when living abroad; and if he will make a statement. [110390]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no mechanisms in place to monitor the payment of national insurance by families of soldiers or other Service families when living abroad. The continued payment of United Kingdom national insurance when living overseas will depend upon an individual's employment circumstances and the country they have moved to.

  NATO
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the objectives of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards NATO reform. [110797]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom's principal objective towards NATO reform is to ensure the continued effectiveness and relevance of an enlarged Alliance.

  The NATO summit in Prague, which took place during November last year, focused on transformation, and Alliance leaders agreed a comprehensive package of measures aimed at ensuring NATO has the flexibility and capabilities to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. These measures include: enlargement; a streamlined Command Structure; the creation of a NATO Response Force; a new capabilities initiative; and the modernisation of NATO's internal structures and processes.

  Nordic Brigade
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what developments the UK has made in respect of the Nordic Brigade; and if he will make a statement. [109083]
  451W
  Mr. Hoon
  Last year, at the Nordic Defence Ministers' meeting in Alesund, I signed a Letter of Intent that provides the basis for the United Kingdom's co-operation with NORDCAPS (the Nordic Coordinated Arrangement for Military Peace Support). NORDCAPS provides the formal planning and cooperation framework for a possible Nordic Brigade for Peace Support Operations.

  NORDCAPS builds on the co-operative arrangements that we have enjoyed with our Nordic partners in the Balkans. Our involvement does not commit the United Kingdom to a military contribution to NORDCAPS. We support this initiative in addition to our existing bilateral links with the Nordic countries.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the part-time Workers Directive on staff in his Department. [109265]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is committed to the work/life balance of its civilian staff. A range of flexible working patterns including part-time working, flexible working hours, home working and job share is available to civilian staff by agreement with their management.

  The number of civilian staff employed part-time has increased steadily during the last five years from 4,055 in April 1998 (4.5 per cent. of total work force excluding trading funds) to 5,323 in March 2003 (7 per cent. of total work force excluding trading funds). There has, however, been no attempt to assess the specific impact of the Part-time Workers Directive on this increase as MOD's policies to ensure equal treatment of part-time workers were largely in place well before the European Directive came into force.

  Reservists Standard Awards
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether increases to maximum levels for Reservists Standard Awards will continue to be fixed to(a) inflation levels and (b) an earnings index; [110466]

  (2) whether reservists serving in the Gulf will be able to backdate any increase in the Reservists Standard Award that is agreed on in the next year to include the time spent in the Gulf at any point in 2003; [110465]

  (3) when his Department will be implementing increases to the Reservists Standard Award under SI 1997/309. [110464]

  Dr. Moonie
  The current regulations covering Reservist Standard Awards, as set out in SI 1997/309 (The Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall)(Financial Assistance) Regulations), do not contain a provision to increase the maximum levels of the banded rates. A consultation paper with proposals for revising the financial assistance available to reservists under SI 309/97 when called out into permanent service will be issued shortly. Such a consultation is required under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, prior to any changes being implemented.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use of the three home battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. [110791]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Royal Irish Regiment comprises three Home Service battalions, the General Service battalion which has been serving in Iraq, and a TA battalion.

  Until there is agreement on Security Normalisation in Northern Ireland, it would be premature to come to any conclusions on the final composition of the Northern Ireland garrison. Current planning is addressing the implications of security normalisation for the Home Service battalions. The role of the Home Service element is Military Aid to the Civil Power; as the security environment improves we expect the need for this role will decline.

  Service Personnel (Gulf)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been put in place to provide support to families of armed forces personnel who have been killed or injured serving in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [110418]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Service authorities take very seriously the need to ensure adequate welfare support for personnel and their families and have well-established procedures in place to cater for instances of injury or death.

  Where Service personnel are, for whatever reason, classified as very seriously ill or seriously ill, up to two family members will be eligible to visit them at public expense for up to seven days, extendable to 10 days on medical advice. Unit Welfare Officers will assist families as the need to do so arises.

  Following a death, be it through natural causes, as a direct result of peacetime Service, e.g. an accident, or on the battlefield, the Services have detailed guidelines for Commanding Officers on the procedures to be implemented. In the first instance, the next of kin or other nominated person will be advised of the death through a visit by an officer from the deceased's unit. Following initial notification, an officer is appointed to assist the family in the ensuing days and months and will do so through emotional or administrative support, including matters relating to housing and finance. This support will continue for as long as necessary according to individual circumstance and needs.

  Where families are housed in Service Family Accommodation (SFA), bereaved families can retain their SFA for as long as they feel they need in order to assess their longer term housing requirements.

  Financial support is provided in accordance with the terms of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme and the War Pension Scheme, as detailed in my answer of 3 April 2003, Official Report, columns 781–82W to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). I also explained that, where a Service person dies as a result of Service related to conflict, ex-gratia payments equivalent to benefits paid to a

  453W
  surviving spouse under the AFPS may be awarded to their unmarried partner where there is a substantial relationship.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff in his Department were on long term sick leave in each of the last five years. [109245]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of non industrial staff in the Ministry of Defence who were on long term sick leave in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number of staff

  1998

  —

  1999

  3,304

  2000

  3,411

  2001

  —

  2002

  3,993

  Long term sickness is defined as staff who have been on sick leave for a spell of 30 calendar days or more. Due to data inaccuracies, the figures for 1998 and 2001 cannot be given. Figures are not currently available for industrial staff.

  A programme of measures is being implemented to help meet the target in MOD's Service Delivery Agreement to reduce sickness absence to 7.0 days by the end of 2003 (target adjusted following the reorganisation of Government Departments in 2000). This includes a regular audit of long term sick cases. MOD is committed to improving the health of its staff and managing sick absence more effectively.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Domestic Violence
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on the Government's plans to tackle domestic violence. [110646]

  Ms Hewitt
  As a Government, we are consulting with a view to bringing forward legislation to tackle the issue of domestic violence, we are putting funding into refuges, and establishing a new helpline for women fleeing violence. My own Department is developing initiatives to raise awareness, and my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General is working with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to change the way the police and prosecution services work on domestic violence.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women what action she is taking to promote the appointment of women to the boards of Regional Development Agencies. [110649]

  Ms Hewitt
  Nearly one in three of RDA board members are women. This includes the first woman chair of an RDA whom I appointed in December 2002.

  I am committed to increasing the diversity of the boards of all public bodies sponsored by my Department. I have spoken at events to encourage
  454W
  women to apply for public appointments and specifically mentioned the RDA appointments. My officials run awareness raising events and distribute leaflets to women's groups and other interested bodies in the regions. The material for these posts stresses that appointments are made on merit and that applications from women, ethnic minorities and the disabled are particularly welcome.

  Corporate Social Responsibility
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Minister for Women how her work on Corporate Social Responsibility has affected women. [110650]

  Ms Hewitt
  Our approach to Corporate Social Responsibility is to encourage companies to make environmentally and socially responsible practices an integral part of their business operations, to the benefit of both society and business.

  Where companies do so, women will benefit as employees, customers and citizens. Women, especially in developing countries, are disproportionately affected by bad working conditions and environmental damage. The Government's policies to tackle these issues will directly benefit women both in the UK and overseas.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister for Women what measures she is taking to help women to set up their own businesses. [110651]

  Ms Hewitt
  I will shortly launch a national strategic framework for women's enterprise, which has been developed by the Small Business Service, in conjunction with Prowess (Promoting Women's Enterprise Support) and a cross-Government policy group. This framework will provide a cohesive, co-ordinated and long-term approach to the development of women's enterprise across the UK.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Industry
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to improve productivity growth rates in manufacturing industry. [110642]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's Manufacturing Strategy, published in May last year, identified seven key areas of activity for Government and industry that are crucial for manufacturing success. We are taking action in all of those areas—for example, with the setting up of the Manufacturing Advisory Service—to help UK manufacturers improve productivity in very difficult global conditions.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to increase productivity in UK manufacturing business. [110625]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's Manufacturing Strategy, published in May last year, identified seven key areas of activity for Government and industry that are crucial for manufacturing success. We are taking
  455W
  action in all of those areas—for example, with the setting up of the Manufacturing Advisory Service—to help UK manufacturers improve productivity in very difficult global conditions.

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to increase the UK's productivity levels in manufacturing industry; and if she will make a statement. [110629]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are taking action to help manufacturers facing difficult conditions through the Government's Manufacturing Strategy, developed in partnership with industry. The supporting measures we have established, such as the Manufacturing Advisory Service, will help UK manufacturers to improve their productivity.

  Broadband
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the take-up of broadband internet access in the UK. [110643]

  Mr. Timms
  According to Oftel's Internet and Broadband Brief for March 2003, take-up of broadband continues to increase substantially. Total broadband subscribers are over 1.77 million.

  Export Control
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department invited submissions from the Metropolitan Police to the DTI's consultation on the secondary legislation for the Export Control Act 2002. [109657]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The fully public consultation on the DTIs Export Control Act 2002 invites views from all organisations with an interest in strategic export controls. The draft secondary legislation to be made under the Export Control Act was drawn up in consultation with all relevant Government Departments, including the Home Office. We will be working with all relevant enforcement authorities to ensure them new controls operate efficiently and effectively.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanisms are in place for independent assessment of the Government's exemptions to its export control policy. [110396]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development, and Trade & Industry Committees, appointed by the House of Commons under Standing Order No. 152, can independtley examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Ministry of Defence, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, and the Department of Trade & Industry, and any associated public bodies.

  Exports (Syria)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the export licences granted in respect of exports to Syria since 1997; and if she will make a statement on exports to Syria with a possible military application. [110224]
  456W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The details of all export licences granted in respect of exports to Syria since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. Between 1 January 2003 and 7 April 2003, no Standard Individual Export Licences or Open Individual Export Licences were issued, where the end users were in Syria.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value has been of UK chemical exports to Syria in each year since 1997. [110225]

  Nigel Griffiths
  According to information published by HM Customs and Excise, the value of UK exports of chemicals to Syria, in each of the years since 1997, was as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1997

  16.5

  1998

  21.0

  1999

  20.7

  2000

  18.9

  2001

  15.3

  2002

  19.0

  Chemicals are defined by Section 5 of the Standard International Trade Classification, revision 3 and include a list which comes to 40 pages.

  Inward Investment (North-West)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to promote inward investment in the North-West. [110631]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Securing new foreign investment is a key element of the North West Development Agency's Regional Economic Strategy (RES). This aims to strengthen key sectors and encourage the commercial exploitation of the region's science and technology base. In so doing the North West Development Agency will support and complement the work of Invest UK.

  Paternity Leave
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of recent changes to paternity leave on small businesses. [110630]

  Nigel Griffiths
  None. A new right to two weeks' paid paternity leave was only introduced on 6 April.

  Retail Sector
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the prospects for the retail sector. [110640]

  Mr. Timms
  Although the Department has not specifically estimated the future prospects for the retail sector, we fully recognise the importance of the industry and are working closely with it, through the formation of a Retail Strategy Group, to identify and address the key issues affecting its productivity and competitiveness.

  Trading Standards Professionals
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Trading Standards Professionals were employed by local authorities in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 and how many are budgeted to be employed by local authorities in (i) 2003 and (ii) 2004. [110359]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The total number of Trading Standards Professionals employed by local authorities in England and Wales for 2000–01 and 2001–02 was 3732.1 and 3586.9 respectively.

  The total number of staff in Trading Standards Authorities in Scotland for 2000–01 and 2001–02 was 534.5 and 511.6 respectively.

  The data for the budgeted total numbers of Trading Standards professionals to be employed by local authorities in 2003–04 are not yet available. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance is currently collecting this data in an annual return.

  Universal Service Obligation
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent representations she has received on the Royal Mail's universal service obligation; [109197]

  (2) what recent discussions she has had with Royal Mail on the universal service obligation to rural and remote areas of Scotland. [109196]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI Ministers and officials regularly hold discussions with Royal Mail on strategic postal issues. The Government considers the maintenance of a universal postal service to be of the highest importance. Under the terms of the Postal Services Act 2000, universal service is a matter for the postal regulator (Postcomm), which has the primary statutory duty to ensure the provision of a universal postal service at an affordable uniform tariff, and for Royal Mail as the licence holder with the universal service obligation. Following a wide-ranging consultation. Postcomm has established its policy on when exceptions might be permitted, and identified where exceptions exist. This document is available on their website at http://www.psc.uov.uk/docuinents/licensiiiR. Under this policy, exceptions to the universal service daily delivery can only be allowed in very specific and restricted circumstances.

  On 10 April, Postcomm launched a further three-month consultation to find out what users expect from the universal postal service currently provided by Royal Mail. All postal users are invited to comment on the universal service, to say what matters to them, and how they expect the service to develop. Again the information on this consultation can be obtained from Postcomm's website.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the most recent annual report into the sale of antibiotics for use in animals in the UK has been published. [110086]
  458W
  Mr. Morley
  The Report of the Sales of Antimicrobial Products authorised for use as veterinary medicines, growth promoters, coccidiostats and antiprotozoals, in the UK in 2001, was published on 10 April 2003 on the VMD website. I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Agricultural Sludge
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the consultation on Proposals to Amend the Statutory Controls for the use of Agricultural Sludge was carried out in accordance with the Government's code of practice on written consultation. [109993]

  Mr. Morley
  I can confirm that the consultation on the proposals to amend the statutory controls for the agricultural use of sludge was carried out in accordance with the code of practice for written consultation including allowance for a 13 week consultation period.

  Agricultural Trade Barriers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of agricultural trade barriers on legal and illegal migration to the EU. [108815]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department has not made any such assessment. There are many factors which might contribute to legal or illegal migration to the EU. The impact of agricultural trade barriers would be difficult to gauge but it is considered unlikely that it would represent a significant factor.

  Agricultural Workers
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of workers in Shrewsbury and Atcham were working in agriculture in each year since 1997. [109678]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures from the 2001 Population Census show that, of the 46,100 people in employment in the district of Shrewsbury and Atcham, three per cent were working in agriculture. The Population Census is the only source of information on the percentage in employment in agriculture for which sufficiently precise figures for Shrewsbury and Atcham are available, but it is only conducted decennially.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice her Department has made available to farms in Worcestershire on dealing with fallen stock. [109101]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department will be writing to all livestock farmers in England about the new rules on disposal of fallen stock before Easter. In addition there is information on the Defra website and advice may be obtained from the Worcester Animal Health Office.
  459W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the European Commission on the subject of the regulation banning on farm burial of fallen stock from 1 May in respect of(a) the challenges posed to farmers who have long distances to the nearest rendering plant and (b) the need for sufficient time for the Government to consult the industry on how it proposes to address the consequences of the ban. [108758]

  Mr. Morley
  The consequences of the ban on burial of livestock have been animal by-products regulation was proposed.

  The Government has been discussing the possibility of establishing a national scheme for the collection of fallen stock with representatives of the farming industry since April 2002, but progress was hindered by the industry's initial reluctance to accept anything less than 100 per cent. Government funding. The industry were forewarned of the proposed ban even before these discussions and have had considerable time to prepare for the impending legislation.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what opportunities her Department has to secure derogations to the on farm burial ban of fallen stock equivalent to those secured by the Scottish Executive. [108759]

  Mr. Morley
  Member States may derogate from the ban on the burial of animal carcases, for fallen stock in respect of remote areas, and in certain circumstances during disease outbreaks.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice her Department has given to cooperative groups of neighbouring farmers assessing the prospect of purchasing jointly a biodigestor or incinerator to deal with fallen stock in respect of(a) siting and (b) the transport of dead stock from one member's farm to the farm on which the facility is sited. [108774]

  Mr. Morley
  Guidance on on-farm incinerators, including shared incinerators, was included in a letter sent to all livestock farmers in England on 17 April. A copy of this letter is on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/by-prods/default.htm. Further guidance will be made available shortly.

  Biodigesters are not a permitted means of disposing of fallen stock under the EU Animal By-Products Regulation.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the geographical spread of rendering facilities in the UK and its effect on collection of fallen stock; [108964]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the implementation of the EU fallen stock regulations in Scotland; [108956]

  (3) what additional resources will be required by trading standards departments in respect of new fallen stock regulations. [108963]
  460W
  Mr. Morley
  Rendering or incineration facilities are available throughout the UK to deal with disposal of fallen stock. The collection and disposal industry have stated that there is sufficient capacity to deal with the expected increase in the volume of material when the EU Animal By-Products Regulation comes into effect from 1 May.

  Responsibility for implementing the EU Animal By-Products Regulation in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Allocation of resources for enforcement of the new rules on disposal of fallen stock is a matter for local authorities.

  Animal By-products Order
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will nominate a representative to take forward discussions with bio-dynamic agriculture on the subject of the animal by-products order; and how many cases of BSE have been identified on bio-dynamic holdings. [110159]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra has a number of officials negotiating the Animal By-Products Regulation, who have been taking account of all comments made in the course of our consultations, including those relating to bio-dynamic agriculture. The statistics requested are not available, as BSE statistics do not identify biodynamic holdings separately.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what exemptions are allowable under the animal by-products order, where agriculture involves a closed cycle of animal rearing. [110160]

  Mr. Morley
  The new EU Animal By-Products Regulation permits member states to exercise a number of derogations. None of these provides for derogations simply because there is a closed cycle of animal rearing.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with representatives of bio-dynamic agriculture on the implications of the animal by-products order. [110157]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has undertaken extensive consultation on the new regulation. Comments made by the Biodynamic Agricultural Association are being considered, as are all others.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the EU on the introduction of the animal by-products order, with specific reference to obtaining exemptions for bio-dynamic agriculture. [110158]

  Mr. Morley
  The practice of using animal by-products in the production of fertiliser was discussed at a working group meeting in Brussels on 17 March. It was noted that the European Commission intends to lay down further rules on fertilisers, and the TSE Regulation (999/2001) already prohibits the use of Specified Risk Material in the production of fertiliser.

  Benzone
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her Answer to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) of 27 March 2003,Official Report, column 311W, on benzone, if she will make a statement on the chemical composition of benzone. [108764]

  Mr. Morley
  Benzoic acid (or its sodium, potassium or calcium salt) is permitted by the Miscellaneous Food Additives Regulations 1995 to be used with cooked prawns.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the prevalence of bovine TB in Buckinghamshire. [110450]

  Mr. Morley
  The prevalence of bovine TB in Buckinghamshire is relatively low.

  Of the 862 herds registered in Buckinghamshire, and the area covered by the Milton Keynes Unitary Authority, only one herd is under bovine TB movement restrictions.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the prevalence of bovine TB in Worcestershire. [109100]

  Mr. Morley
  Of the 1,266 herds registered in Worcestershire, 73 (or 5.8 per cent. of herds) are currently under TB restrictions.

  Last year there were 93 new TB incidents in the county, 55 of which were confirmed and 29 unconfirmed, and nine with laboratory results outstanding. Provisional figures for 2003 show there have been four new herd breakdowns in January and seven in February all of which were confirmed.

  The State Veterinary Service has worked hard over the last year to reduce the number of overdue TB herd tests. At the end of February there were 782 TB tests overdue in Worcester region.

  CAP (Transitional Arrangements)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the transitional arrangements are for the Common Agricultural Policy in relation to the forthcoming EU enlargement. [108814]

  Mr. Morley
  In becoming members of the European Union, the new member states have agreed to take over and apply EU rules, subject to certain transitional measures, limited in both time and scope. For agriculture, the most significant include the gradual phasing in of direct payments, enhanced rural development measures, and certain veterinary and phytosanitary provisions. In the public health sector a number of time limited and tightly controlled transition measures have been agreed for individually named food production premises to correct certain structural 462W
  defects. Crucially, products from such premises cannot enter the single market. No transitional arrangements relate to the food hygiene acquis.

  Further details can be found on the European Commission's website: europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/negotiations/chapters/negotiationsguide.pdf and in the Government's forthcoming Explanatory Memorandum on the Accession Treaty.

  Carcase Disposal
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of proposed new legislation on animal carcass disposal on pest control, with respect to the tracking of injured pests. [108132]

  Mr. Morley
  The carcases, or parts of carcases, of wild animals will be exempt from the scope of the Animal By-Products Regulation unless they are thought to be diseased or are used to produce game trophies. Although the Regulation places them under no legal obligation, owners of property on which there are dead wild animals are advised to contact their local authority for advice on appropriate disposal methods.

  Injured pests should, where practical, be tracked and humanely killed.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the United Kingdom has the right to withdraw from the EU Common Fisheries Policy, without withdrawing from the EU itself. [109693]

  Mr. Morley
  A change to the Treaty of Rome would be required for the UK to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy without withdrawing from the EU.

  Darwin Mounds
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to establish a no-fishing zone over the Darwin Mounds; [109620]

  (2) what steps the Government is taking to protect the Darwin Mounds off the coast of Scotland prior to its formal designation as a Special Area of Conservation. [109618]

  Mr. Morley
  We have identified the Darwin Mounds area as a likely candidate for designation as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive. However, legislation to apply the Habitats Directive in the offshore area which would enable the UK to designate offshore SACs and to take measures to protect them is not yet in place. Consultation on the necessary legislation will take place in the near future.

  In the absence of such legislation, I wrote in October 2002 to Margot Wallstrom, the Commissioner for the Environment, and Franz Fischler, the Commissioner for Fisheries, seeking assistance in protecting the Mounds. We have since been exploring with the Commission the most effective means for putting in place measures to protect the area from the impact of

  463W
  fishing, including whether it would be appropriate to use emergency powers available under the new Common Fisheries Policy framework regulation, (EC) No. 2371/02.

  Deer Sanctuary Report
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 9 April,Official Report, column 272W, if she will place in the Library the vets' report on the League Against Cruel Sports Deer Sanctuary at Baronsdown. [110063]

  Mr. Morley
  A copy of the welfare report cannot be placed in the Library as the results of welfare checks conducted by the State Veterinary Service are confidential between the State Veterinary Service and the keeper/owner of the animals concerned. The report cannot be divulged to a third party.

  Energy Efficiency
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 27 March 2003,Official Report, column 311W, when final decisions will be made on the level of expenditure in support of energy efficiency in (a) 2003 and (b) 2004. [110423]

  Mr. Morley
  Final decisions have now been taken. In 2003–04 the total spending available from Defra to support energy efficiency will be £268,042,000.

  This includes £33,500,000 for The Carbon Trust, £22,487,000 for the Energy Saving Trust and £22,055,000 for the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme. In spite of heavy pressures on Defra's overall spending, these budgets remain broadly unchanged from last year reflecting the importance we attach to energy efficiency following the Energy White Paper. In addition, over £34,000,000 of capital grants and development support are available under the Community Energy. The budget for fuel poverty will be £156,000,000. No decisions have yet been taken about spending levels in future years.

  Environment Agency Fees
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will provide a breakdown of the Environment Agency's fee of £108 per hour for chargeable pre-application advice on Operator Performance and Risks Appraisal to show the amounts calculated by the agency to consist of(a) salaries of the account manager, (b) employers' costs, (c) admin support, (d) management and specialist expertise, (e) accommodation, (f) IT, (g) other support services, (h) corporate costs and (i) depreciation and rate of return. [110221]

  Mr. Meacher
  The level of application charge for Pollution Prevention and Control permits assumes that a maximum of 15 hours of direct staff time will be spent on pre-application discussions. The costs of any additional pre-application advice are recovered at the rate of £108 per hour of adviser's time. In some circumstances, the Environment Agency may waive this fee: if, for example, a pre-application discussion breaks new ground that would benefit applicants more 464W
  widely. The breakdown, calculated in accordance with the HM Treasury Fees and Charges Guide, is as follows:

  £

  Direct costs

  Salary of account manager (adviser)

  32

  Employer's contributions (national insurance and pensions)

  6

  Direct administrative support

  2

  Management and specialist supporting expertise

  19

  Infrastructure and policy costs

  Accommodation

  5

  IT

  9

  Other support services

  17

  Policy development

  5

  Other corporate costs

  10

  Depreciation and rate of return

  3

  Total

  108

  Fisheries
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions her Department had with the Scottish Executive prior to the decision of the European Commission to extend the area of fisheries restrictions to(a) Klondyke Bank, (b) North East Rough and (c) Coral Bank; [109142]

  (2) what (a) discussions she had with and (b) representations she made to the European Commission prior to the extension of fisheries restrictions to the (i) Klondyke Bank, (ii) North East Rough and (iii) Coral Bank; [109190]

  (3) what fishermen's organisations in Scotland were consulted by her Department prior to the decision by the European Commission to extend the area of fishing restrictions to (a) Klondyke Bank, (b) North East Rough and (c) Coral Bank. [109191]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 April 2003]: The Commission proposed the amendment to the derogated area in ICES areas IV and IIIa to ensure that the boundary of the area subject to the EU days at sea scheme was consistent with that of the closed area operating in the zone during 2001.

  The Commission also proposed a series of other amendments, designed to clarify their original intentions and provide additional flexibility in operation and enforcement of the scheme. We and colleagues in the Scottish Executive considered the package on offer to be of considerable value to the UK and were keen that the new arrangements should apply as soon as possible. We were not therefore prepared to see implementation of the package delayed and thus voted in favour of it at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 8 April. The UK industry were consulted on the text, before the decision to agree it was taken.

  GM Crop Trials
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) the consent reference number, (b) the six figure grid reference, (c) the size, (d) the date of planting and (e) expected period of harvest are for the GM crop trials in the UK which have been notified for the 2002–03 growing season but which are not part of the farm scale evaluations or the National Seed Listing Trials. [110543]

  Consent number

  Six-fig grid

  Size (maximum)

  Date of planting (expected)

  Date of harvest (expected)

  GM crop

  02/R4/12

  TF 074009

  1000 m2

  March 2003

  November 2003

  Potato

  01/R9/4

  TF 124 136

  100 m2

  Spring 2003

  Autumn 2003

  Wheat

  01/R29/3

  TG 179 077

  30 m2

  February 2003

  September 2003

  Barley

  03/R29/4

  TG 180 070

  4 m2

  May 2003

  October 2003

  Pea

  02/R36/01

  TL 124 136

  100 m2

  Spring 2003

  Autumn 2003

  Wheat

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether the timing of the public consultancy over GM crops will allow the public to express views on the result of the GM field trials; [110374]

  (2) when she expects to release the results of the GM field trials. [110375]

  Mr. Meacher
  A series of scientific papers describing the outcome of the farm-scale evaluations for the three spring-sown crops (maize, beet and spring oil seed rape) has been submitted by the research consortium to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. The acceptance of the papers for publication, and the specific timing of publication, is entirely at the discretion of the journal. I understand that the papers are unlikely to be published before September. The main phase of the GM public debate will be conducted in June and July, and the Public Debate Steering Board is due to submit its report to Government in September. The results of the field trials are therefore unlikely to be available to the public taking part in the debate. However, once published, the results will be in the public domain and available for comment in the usual way.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of the Horticultural Development Council. [109179]

  Mr. Morley
  The Horticultural Development Council was established under the provisions of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, and is therefore subject to statutory review at five yearly intervals. The last review was completed in July 1999 when Agriculture Ministers agreed that the Council should continue for a further term. The next statutory review is due to be completed by July 2004 when a decision will be made on the continuence of the Council and any changes proposed to its covering legislation. As required by the Act, bodies representative of persons carrying out business in the horticultural industry, and organisations representing persons employed in the industry, will be consulted as part of the review.
  466W
  Mr. Meacher
  There were no GM crop trials carried out in the winter of 2002–03 other than those in the farm scale evaluation programme and for the purpose of national seed listing trials.

  The following GM crop trials will be carried out in the UK during the 2003 growing season, these releases are for the purpose of small scale research and development trials (they are not part of the farm scale evaluations or for the purpose of national seed listing trials).

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what analysis her Department has undertaken to assess the impact on the UK horticulture industry of the EU proposals for decoupled agricultural support payments. [110012]

  Mr. Morley
  Our published economic analysis of the Commission's proposals for reform of the CAP indicates an overall economic benefit to the UK of about £500 million. We are in discussion with industry representatives about the impact on individual horticulture producers of the proposed new system.

  Inspection Staff
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) staff and (b) staff engaged in inspection work have been employed by (i) the Environment Agency and (ii) the Countryside Agency in each year since 1997. [105870]

  Mr. Meacher
  The number of staff employed by the Environment and Countryside Agencies is as follows:

  (i) Environment Agency

  Year

  Total full time equivalents

  Engaged in inspection work

  1997

  9,123

  2,926

  1998

  9,073

  2,927

  1999

  9,707

  2,953

  2000

  10,296

  3,081

  2001

  10,476

  3,031

  2002

  10,824

  2,962

  2003

  11,087

  2,979

  (ii) Countryside Agency

  Year

  Total full time equivalents

  1997

  1245

  1998

  1241

  1999

  1243

  2000

  436

  2001

  435

  2002

  520

  2003

  587

  1Staff employed by the Countryside Commission, the main predecessor body of the Countryside Agency. The Countryside Agency was established on 1 April 1999.

  467W
  The Countryside Agency's has no staff engaged in inspection work, its statutory powers do not include inspection, or the appointment of inspectors.

  Landfill
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish guidance(a) defining corrosive materials in a landfill environment and (b) defining the waste treatment requirements of article 6a of the Council Directive 1999/31/EC. [110219]

  Mr. Meacher
  Corrosive materials were banned from landfill with effect from 16 July 2002. The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, that implement the Landfill Directive (Council Directive 1999/31/EC) in England and Wales, define waste as corrosive"if it consists of substances and preparations which destroy living tissue on contact".
  Those Regulations define treatment, as referred to in Article 6a of the Directive, as meaning
  "physical, thermal, chemical or biological processes (including sorting) that change the characteristics of waste in order to reduce its volume or hazardous nature, facilitate its handling or enhance recovery".

  Extensive guidance on all aspects of the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 is available on the Environment Agency website.

  Offshore Natural Features
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the protection of offshore natural features. [109619]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government is committed to a range of initiatives aimed at protecting the marine environment as outlined in our first Marine Stewardship Report "Safeguarding Our Seas: A Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of our Marine Environment". This includes extending the protection afforded by the Habitats and Birds Directives to offshore areas to protect important natural habitats and species. We aim to consult on draft regulations this summer. We are also looking at ways to improve the

  Title

  Funding Body

  Contractor contact

  Contractor

  Remarks

  Start date

  End date

  Status

  Genetic variation in susceptibility to chronic effects of organophosphate exposure

  HSE

  Dr. Nicola Cherry

  Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Manchester

  Letter published in Lancet (2002 March, v159). Available at VMD website at http://www.vmd.gov.uk/via > Research & Development > Current Projects Final report imminent

  January 1999

  March 2002

  Completed

  Survey of health complaints among sheep–dippers

  Defra Science Directorate

  Dr. Tony Fletcher

  London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine

  January 2001

  December 2002

  Completed

  Dose effect profiles for OP sheep dip on brain electrical activity and cognitive performance

  Defra Science Directorate

  Dr. Leah Scott

  DSTL, Porton Down

  Available at VMD website at http://www.vmd.gov.uk/via > Research & Development > Current Projects

  April 1998

  December 2002

  Completed—final report awaited

  Prospective cohort study of sheep dip exposure and dipper's flu

  HSE

  Dr. Andrew Povey

  Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Manchester

  Commencement of project negotiations delayed by FMD, then contractual reconciliation within contractor consortium

  January 2003

  July 2005

  Work imminently starting

  468W
  protection available to marine species and habitats, including in the offshore area, through our Review of Marine Nature Conservation. We expect the Review to publish its recommendations early next year.

  Organic Farmers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many organic farmers have been registered in Buckinghamshire in each year since 1997. [110415]

  Mr. Meacher
  According to our latest records there are currently 14 organic farms registered in Buckinghamshire. Information for earlier years, broken down by county, is not available.

  The Department is developing the collection, collation and publication of information on organic food production as one of the commitments under the Action Plan to Develop Organic Food and Farming in England published on 29 July 2002.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the most recent independent research commissioned by the Government into the toxic effects on humans of the use of organophosphate chemicals was; what response the Government made to its conclusions; and if she will make a statement. [109809]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 April 2003]: As part of the Government's Four Point Plan on OPs a research requirements document was published on 20 July 2000.

  The current state of play on each of the successful bids is set out in the table. The table also details two Government sponsored OP research projects that were already underway before the announcement of the Government Four Point Plan:

  A University of Manchester study into genetic variation in susceptibility to Ops; and A Porton Down study into the effects of OP exposure on brawn activity.

  In addition, Defra is funding a survey on health complaints amongst sheep dippers by Dr. Tony Fletcher (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine). The first results for this survey are expected shortly.
  469W

  Title

  Funding Body

  Contractor contact

  Contractor

  Remarks

  Start date

  End date

  Status

  Disabling neuropsychiatric disease in farmers exposed to organophosphates.

  Defra Science Directorate/DH

  Dr. Andrew Povey

  Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Manchester

  Available at VMD website at http://www.vmd.gov.uk/via > Research & Development > Current Projects Identification of, and access to worker records has delayed survey

  January 2002

  December 2006

  Work in progress

  Characterisation of non-acetylcholinesterase actions of organophosphates by identification of novel protein targets

  Defra Science Directorate

  Dr. David Ray

  Neurotoxicology Section, MRC Applied Neuroscience Group, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham.

  Available at VMD website at http://www.vmd.gov.uk/via > Research & Development,lb/> > Current Projects

  June 2001

  June 2003

  Work in progress

  Investigation of possible autoimmune responses induced by organophosphate exposure

  Defra Science Directorate

  Dr. Howard Mason

  Health and Safety Laboratory, Sheffield

  Available at VMD website at http://www.vmd.gov.uk/via > Research & Development > Current Projects

  April 2001

  September 2003

  Work in progress

  A review of the effects of low level exposure to organophosphate pesticides on foetal and childhood health

  DH

  Dr. Leonard Levy

  MRC Institute for Environment and Health, University of Leicester

  Final Report available on IEH website, http://www.le.ac.uk/ieh/via > reports & publications > human exposure & risk assessment > W11

  April 2001

  May-2002

  Completed

  A case-controlled study of neuropsychological and psychiatric functioning in sheep farmers exposed to organophosphate pesticides

  Defra Science Directorate

  Dr. Sarah Mackenzie-Ross

  University College London

  Start imminent (3 years expected duration)

  Assessment of pattern and extent of autonomic abnormalities in a group of sheep farmers and dippers

  Defra Science Directorate

  Dr. Goran Jamal

  Imperial College

  Proposal under peer review by Royal Society

  Proposal

  The findings of all Government sponsored research into this issue are routinely referred for advice to the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC), the Government's independent advisory committee established to advise Ministers on the safety, quality and efficacy of veterinary medicines. The VPC's latest advice on OP research was on a research letter published in the Lancet on 2 March 2002 describing findings from the Health and Safety Executive funded research project into ill health in sheep dip farmers and polymorphism of paraoxonase (PON 1). The research letter concluded that these results "support the hypothesis that organophosphates contribute to the reported ill health of people who dip sheep".

  Although the full results of this study are still awaited. The VPC, under guidance from its Medical and Scientific Panel (MSP), has advised that the differences reported from the study were not large and were not, in themselves, sufficient to support the hypothesis that organophosphates contribute to the reported ill health of people who dip sheep. However, the VPC considered that the hypothesis postulated by this study could merit a more robust and better designed study. The VPC considered that once the full findings had been published the authors of the study should be invited to present them to the MSP.

  The VPC also considered that the evidence in the research letter did not justify any additional regulatory action on the current authorisations for organophosphate sheep dips.
  470W
  A further report on the findings of this research was published in the February 2003 edition of "Pharmacogenetics" and this is being studied by the MSP.

  Pesticide Residues
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 28 March.,Official Report, column 476–7W, on pesticide residues, how many tests were carried out on (a) British foods and (b) imported foods; what proportion of samples were found to have residues of banned substances; and what proportion of samples were found to have excessive residues of (i) pesticides, (ii) fertilisers, (iii) fungicides and (iv) other synthetic crop enhancers. [108927]

  Mr. Morley
  During the seven year period in question (1995–2002) the total number of samples analysed for pesticide residues totalled around 24,000, of which around 14,000 were of UK origin and 10,000 were imported. Only 26 residues were found of the withdrawn substances listed in the reply of 11 March. 8 samples were of UK origin and 18 were imported. The proportion of samples containing residues of withdrawn substances were therefore 0.06 per cent. UK and 0.18 per cent. imported.

  Over this period the proportion of samples with pesticide residues exceeding the maximum residue level averaged 1 per cent. The most recently published data

  471W
  for 2001 indicate that this was based on 1 per cent. of imported samples and 0.5 per cent. of UK origin samples exceeding these levels. These figures relate to all pesticides including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and plant growth regulators. Detailed analysis of these figures by pesticide type and by year could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Residues of nitrates and other fertilisers, which may leave residues in crops, areissues for the (FSA) Food Standards Agency.

  Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will attend the Environment for Europe ministerial meeting in Kiev in May; and if the UK will sign the UNECE Protocol or Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (Aarhus Convention) at that meeting. [110379]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will represent the UK at the Kiev Environment for Europe conference between 21 and 23 May 2003. The Government is considering its position in relation to all three protocols which will be opened for signature at Kiev including the Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers. I will write confirming the Government's position once this has been finalised.

  Ruddy Duck
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates have been made of the cost to her Department of the strategy to cull ruddy ducks. [110336]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member. for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 505W.

  Snares
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the ability of a snare to discriminate between species. [110425]

  Mr. Morley
  No recent assessment has been conducted on the discernment of snares for species. However, free-running snares are designed to be a restraining device that is intended to slacken, not continually tighten, thus not causing bodily injury. They are not considered an indiscriminate means of either capture or killing provided they are set correctly and are checked every 24 hours.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made as to the compatibility of the use of snares and the terms of the Bern Convention. [110426]

  Mr. Morley
  The Bern Convention is implemented in England through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Free running snares are permissible under Section 11 of the 1981 Act provided that the snare is not placed in such a way to allow injury to any animal listed on
  472W
  Schedule 6 of the 1981 Act, which includes badgers. Section 11(3) makes it an offence to set in position, or knowingly cause or permit to set in position, any snare which is of such a nature and so placed as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild animal. The snare must also be inspected at least once every 24 hours, so as to avoid any animal held in the snare suffering unnecessarily through starvation or dehydration. All non-target species must be released from the snare.

  Free-running snares are not considered an indiscriminate means of either capture or killing provided they are set correctly and are checked every 24 hours. They are designed to be a restraining device that is intended to slacken, not continually tighten, thus not causing bodily injury.

  The purpose of Section 11 is to expressly prohibit the use of indiscriminate means of capture and killing, in accordance with our international obligations, under the Bern Convention. Penalties for offences under Section 11, including not checking snares and not releasing non-target species, include fines of up to £5,000 and/or a custodial sentence of up to six months for each offence.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 27 March 2003,Official Report, column 310W, how and when her Department is considering ways in which to improve the correct use and effectiveness of snares; and whether this will include a public consultation. [110427]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is currently undertaking discussions with various organisations on an informal basis. Once these discussions have been concluded we will be examining how to take this matter forward.

  Sustainable Energy Partnership
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the progress of Cornwall's Sustainable Energy Partnership's Home Health programme operating in the districts of Kerrier and Penwith, with the support of regeneration funding, in respect of(a) the adequacy of the partnership of local organisations, (b) the method of securing new clients to the programme, (c) its success in geographical targeting and (d) its efforts to reassure clients of their domestic security. [109314]

  Mr. Morley
  We are aware of this project which receives funding through the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and the Community Action for Energy Programme of the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes. An interim evaluation of the Home Health programme has just been completed on behalf of the Partnership and the findings will be considered by my Department.

  TB Reactors
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) steps have been taken and (b) outcomes achieved to reduce the time taken to remove cattle which have had a bovine

  473W
  TB reactor from farms in (i) England, (ii) South-west region, (iii) Cornwall, (iv) Devon, (v) Gloucestershire and (vi) Staffordshire. [108797]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The following steps have been taken by the State Veterinary Service (SVS) to reduce the time taken to remove TB reactors from farms:

  Reminders have been issued to Veterinary Inspectors to submit TB test charts to the SVS without delay after TB tests have been carried out.

  Additional staff have been employed in Animal Health Offices to help process TB tests charts.

  The SVS has asked the National Audit Office, Internal Audit and consultant valuers to look at ways to reduce delays caused by the valuation process.

  The SVS has opened up discussions with representatives of the slaughter industry to see if the current arrangements can be improved by better coordination of transport with the slots available at slaughterhouses.

  (b) The SVS are currently undertaking a review of all their business processes. This review is still underway, and discussions such as those mentioned above are still taking place. It is too soon therefore to measure performance improvements.

  A snapshot of the situation for the last quarter of 2002 is given in the table. Data are not available by county, but by Animal Health Divisional Office(AHDO). Figures for 2003 are not yet available.

  Number of reactors disclosed

  Number of reactors removed from farm within 10 working days

  Percentage of reactors removed from farm within 10 working days

  England

  5,373

  1,235

  23

  SW Region1

  4,592

  829

  12

  Cornwall AHDO

  811

  31

  4

  Devon AHDO

  1,062

  369

  35

  Gloucester AHDO

  1,265

  150

  12

  Stafford AHDO2

  600

  265

  44

  1The figures for SW region cover Exeter AHDO (Devon) Gloucester AHDO (Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Avon). Taunton AHDO (Somerset and Dorset), Truro AHDO (Cornwall) and Worcester AHDO (Hereford and Worcester).

  2Stafford AHDO covers Staffordshire, Cheshire and Derbyshire

  T3327
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the wild animal poison known as T3327 is species specific; and what assessment(a) she and (b) the Central Science Laboratory has made of the impact of it being consumed by (i) other wild mammals, (ii) escaped domestic mammals and (iii) wild birds. [108140]

  Mr. Morley
  T3327 is a shorthand code name for a carbamate and as such is not species specific, but is toxic to all animals. The trial site was carefully chosen and fully licensed under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 (as amended) and by other relevant bodies (note see replies to PQs 1608 and 1609). The Advisory Committee on Pesticides, made an assessment of the potential impact of the poison. The Central Science Laboratory, as the holder of the Experimental Permit and data owner, has agreed to copies of the environmental assessments being placed in the 474W
  Westminster parliamentary Library. During the field trial in 2002 there was no effect on other wild mammals (other than badgers), domestic mammals or wild birds. The baits are buried to reduce the chances of being found by domestic livestock and wild birds. A full report of the trial will be published in due course.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ask the Environment Agency to examine the operation of Crabbe Yard, Wadborough, Worcestershire, for compliance with regulations relating to the disposal of waste. [109856]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been assured that the Environment Agency has visited the site on several occasions this year and is working in cooperation with other organisations to regulate this site and the company operating from it. At present, there is no evidence to suggest that any waste activities are being carried out on the site that would require a waste management licence from the Agency, although the site has registered an exemption from waste management licensing for the storage of road planings. The Agency will continue to monitor the site to ascertain whether activities being carried out come within the scope of Waste Management Licensing.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of household waste was recycled in(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [102356]

  Mr. Meacher
  Household waste recycling figures are not collected for individual constituencies. The following figures show household recycling rates (including composting) from 1997 onwards for South Tyneside, the North East and England. This is a devolved matter, so figures are shown for England only. The data are available on the Defra website.

  Percentage

  Area

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  South Tyneside

  n/a

  4

  4

  6

  The north east

  4.4

  3.7

  3.6

  4.1

  England

  8.2

  9.0

  10.3

  11.2

  Water Industry
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about the Water Industry (Charges) (Vulnerable Group) (Amendment) Regulations. [109959]

  Mr. Morley
  None. The Water Industry (Charges) (Vulnerable Group) (Amendment) Regulations, which came into force on 31 March 2003, were technical amendments to reflect changes to the benefits and tax credits system.
  475W
  The consultation paper, "Reductions for Vulnerable Groups", issued by my Department on 25 February 2003 explained these changes and invited comments on proposed extensions of the regulations. The consultation period will end on 9 May after which we shall publish a response to consultation including a list of all those organisations and individuals who responded.

  Wild Mammal Trials
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what trials the Department is engaged in with the Central Science Laboratory; and whether such trials relating to wild mammals involve the use of(a) repellants, (b) electric fencing and (c) condition taste aversion. [108141]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has commissioned the Central Science Laboratory to carry out a range of studies of wild mammals and birds with the aim of developing effective, humane and environmentally sensitive approaches to wildlife management. Ongoing work with wild mammals includes the potential use of repellents and conditioned taste aversion as non-lethal means of resolving conflicts between wildlife and other interests. There are no current trials on electric fencing although previous studies have developed effective methods to manage some problems posed by rabbits, foxes and badgers. Advisory leaflets on these methods are available from the National Wildlife Management Team of Defra's Rural Development Service www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/leaflets.htm.

  Wildlife Rescue Services
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support her Department has given to wildlife rescue services in each of the past 10 years; and what recent representations she has received about the funding of such services. [109725]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department welcomes the activities of groups who seek to rehabilitate wildlife. We do not give financial assistance to these organisations. We are not aware of specific representations made concerning the funding of such services.

  While the Government cannot see a case for extending the use of public money to directly fund their work, it has policies in place to increase the value of these gifts by generous tax concessions, thereby supporting the work of all charities without compromising their independence.

  As part of the Government's policy to encourage more people to give to charity, the tax incentives for charitable giving were improved from 6 April 2000. There are now no limits on the amounts that individuals can give through the Gift Aid and Payroll Giving Schemes. In addition, for the first time, there is a new income tax relief for gifts to charity of listed shares and securities. Businesses can also get tax relief when they donate money, stock or equipment to charities in general.

WALES

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109492]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 249W.

  Aerospace Industry (North Wales)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the aerospace industry in North Wales. [97547]

  Peter Hain
  I remain positive about the prospects for this sector in North Wales, which, happily, provides employment opportunities for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I continue to support extensions to services across Wales, which of course benefit local support industries.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales recently visited Airbus Industries in Broughton. He has also met Aerospace Wales, who have a clear and ambitious vision, representing an exciting future for the industry throughout Wales.

  Building Supplies
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of UK(a) aluminium, (b) tinplate, (c) steel and (d) timber supply originated in Wales in the last three years. [107513]

  Peter Hain
  (a) There are no output figures available for Welsh aluminium supply. However, in both 1999 and 2000 the number of employees in aluminium production at Welsh based firms was 22 per cent. and in 2001 19 per cent. as a proportion of GB figures.

  Source:
  Annual Business Inquiry. Office for National Statistics.

  (b) There are no employees in tin manufacturing in Wales, as recorded on the Annual Business Inquiry.

  (c) In 1999, Wales accounted for 42 per cent. of UK crude steel production, 45 per cent. in 2000 and 34 per cent. in 2001.

  Source:
  Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  (d) Annual timber production in Wales over the last three years has been around 1.35 million tones. It is not possible to say what this represents in terms of a proportion of UK timber supply needs.

  Employment Relations Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff in his Department have taken time off from work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999. [108346]

  Peter Hain
  My Department does not keep records of staff who take time off work under the Employment Relations Act 1999. Staff are granted 5 days paid special
  477W
  leave to deal with short-term domestic incidents and special leave without pay may be granted for longer periods according to circumstances.

  Grants
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what scale of funding was offered to LG Electronics in seeking to attract the firm as an inward investor for their operations in Newport, South Wales; [105607]

  (2) if he will list each grant given to (a) LG Electronics and (b) LG Semiconductors from public funds for their operations in Newport, South Wales, and the dates on which they were given. [105608]

  Peter Hain
  In 1997, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Hague) co-ordinated offers to LG Electronics Wales Ltd. and LG Semicon Wales Ltd., public sector funding packages of £129.5 million and £117.5 million respectively. The combined package of £247 million comprised:Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) of £69.5 million;
  £10 million infrastructure work funded by the WDA;
  WDA property grants of £118.9 million;
  Site development support of £17 million;
  Land to the value of £14.2 million;
  Training support of up to £17.6 million;

  This related to anticipated investment of over £1.6 billion and the creation of 6,100 jobs.

  With regard to payments made, companies dealing with the Welsh Assembly Government expect such details to be handled confidentially.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding was (2) how much funding was(a) offered and (b) provided to LG Semiconductors following the offer aimed at attracting the firm as an inward investor for their operations in Newport, South Wales. [105609]

  Peter Hain
  In 1997, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Hague) co-ordinated offers to LG Electronics Wales Ltd. and LG Semicon Wales Ltd., public sector funding packages of £129.5 million and £117.5 million respectively.

  With regard to payments made, companies dealing with the Welsh Assembly Government expect such details to be handled confidentially.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on grant aid given to LG for their operations in Newport, South Wales. [105610]

  Peter Hain
  Following the announcement of the Welsh Office's intentions by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Hague), a package of support to LG Semicon Wales Ltd. and LG Electronics Wales Ltd. was approved by the European Commission in 1997. However, responsibility for administrating RSA in Wales has now passed to the Welsh Assembly Government. Since then, I understand that considerable private sector investment has gone into the Newport site in terms of infrastructure, buildings and equipment with assistance from the public sector. A significant number of jobs were created by LG Electronics Wales Ltd. and subsequently the joint 478W
  venture LG Philips Displays, but the volatility of the semiconductor sector and issues in the Korean economy, meant that the semiconductor plant has not proceeded into production.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on manufacturing industry in Wales. [109965]

  Peter Hain
  The Government recognise that manufacturing in the UK, including Wales, has had a tough time and is still enduring the effects of the general global economic slowdown.

  Manufacturing represents 30 per cent. of GDP in Wales and still has a fundamental role as a generator in the Welsh economy. While some traditional manufacturers are moving to Asia and the Far East, many new jobs are being created in Wales in hi-tech sectors.

  The Chancellor's recent Budget announced a number of measures to support manufacturing which will help companies in making the transition from high volume/low worth to low volume/high worth production. These include a further ex tension of volume based Research and Development tax credit to all companies, the continuing process of establishing regional centres of manufacturing excellence, and an independent review aimed at ensuring a strong supply of highly skilled scientists and engineers.

  In the past, when the world economy did badly, Wales did much worse—always first into the recession and last back out. Today, with the global economy again contracting, Wales is doing far better.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff in his Department have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive since it came into force. [108418]

  Peter Hain
  None

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales(a) how many and (b) what grades of officials are responsible for the monitoring of progress towards the public service agreement targets of his Department. [1094701

  Peter Hain
  My Department does not have a Public Service Agreement.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants have been seconded from his Department to(a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, broken down by (i) grade of civil servants seconded, (ii) location and (iii) dates of secondments, in each year since 1999–2000. [108088]
  479W
  Peter Hain
  The permanent civil servants in my Department are all on loan or secondment from other organisations. As such their home departments are responsible for forward secondments and loans to elsewhere. There have been two such secondments, one to the Home Office and the other to Buckingham Palace.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101858]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Agricultural Holdings Bill
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Advocate General if she will publish her decision on the compatibility of the Agricultural Holdings Bill and the Scotland Act 1998. [108955]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 I have the power, within four weeks of the passing of a Bill, to refer the question of whether a Bill or any provision of a Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. With regard to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill I decided not to refer the Bill or any provision of it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how many working days were lost owing to industrial action by staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [101957]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  None.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General what her estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for her Department in 2002. [101852]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

SCOTLAND

  Shotgun Licences
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for a shotgun licence have been received during the last year for which figures are available from residents of(a) Dumfries and Galloway and (b) Scotland; and how many of these were refused. [108957]
  480W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The most recent available information on applications for shotgun certificates in Scotland is for 2001.

  In that year, in the Dumfries and Galloway police area, there were 1,495 applications—new and renewals—for shotgun certificates. Of these, six were refused.

  For Scotland as a whole, in 2001, there were 16,632 applications for shotgun certificates, of which 61 were refused.

  Full details are published in the Scottish Executive's statistical bulletin CrJ/2002/4, Firearm Certificates Statistics, Scotland, 2001.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101857]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Accountancy services to my Department are provided, when required, by the Scottish Executive and separate costs are not available. The Scotland Office has not used other external accountancy services.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109495]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his earlier question of 7 March 2003, number 101857.

  Civil Service Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what grades in the Civil Service in her Department are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [104966]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office follows the conditions set out in the Civil Service Management Code which requires departments and agencies to ensure that staff use the most efficient and economical means of travel in the circumstances, taking into account any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities.

  The Department meets the cost of business air tickets for staff flying on official business; no distinction is made by grade. Senior civil service staff may travel first class in exceptional circumstances at official expense only with prior approval of theHead of Department.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance her Department issues to civil servants on how to deal with claims from organisations that the information they provide to the Department is commercially confidential. [105482]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No guidance has been issued by my Department. Such issues would normally arise only where there is a question of whether or not the information should be disclosed to a third party. In such cases, the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, and the related guidance, would help
  481W
  officials determine whether information should be disclosed or withheld in response to an individual request.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of total spending on Ministers'(a) private offices, (b) entertainment, (c) UK travel, (d) international travel, (e) pay and (f) other costs for each year from 1996–97 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [90444]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. From that date, the information requested is as follows:

  (a) In the period 1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000 the costs of Ministers' private offices were not recorded separately. The costs of ministerial private offices after March 2000 were:

  £

  2000–01

  522,721

  2001–02

  614,146

  2002–03 (est)

  594,486

  The figures do not take account of accommodation costs and other overheads.

  (b) Expenditure on hospitality and entertainment was:

  £

  1999–2000

  10,638

  2000–01

  41,275

  2001–02

  25,789

  2002–03 (est)

  38,789

  All such expenditure is made in accordance with published guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  (c) In the period 1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000 the cost of ministerial travel was not recorded separately. From 1 April 2000, the cost of ministerial travel within the UK was:

  £

  2000–01

  39,585

  2001–02

  34,915

  2002–03 (est)

  22,756

  (d) Since 1999, the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers covering £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002 were published on 24 July 2002. The cost of Ministers' visits overseas for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.
  482W
  (e) Ministers' pay costs were as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  152,102

  2000–01

  155,328

  2001–02

  175,843

  2002–03 (est)

  185,307

  (f) Other non-pay costs are not separately identifiable.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost of her Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104193]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The cost of maintaining my Department's website in 2002–03 is estimated at £300. The number of page impressions recorded to February 2003 was 454,482.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the estimate is of the total spending of her Department in all forms of entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [92407]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date the Department has spent the following on hospitality and entertainment:

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  10,638

  41,275

  25,789

  38,789

  1Estimated

  All expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with published guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list(a) the title and subject, (b) the total cost to her Department and (c) the commissioned author or organisation of each external report commissioned by her Department in each year since 1997. [103723]

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

  In October 2000, my Department published a report by Colin Buchanan and Partners on "Comparison of Motor Taxation Costs Across Europe". The cost of the report was £5,465.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for her Department in 2002. [101851]
  483W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The cost of ministerial cars and drivers will be addressed in a letter from Mr Nick Matheson, the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency, to the hon. Member.

  The cost of taxis for my Department in 2002–03 was £12,595.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many overseas visits have been made by Scottish Office Ministers in the last 12 months; to where and at what cost; and if she will make a statement. [90445]

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

  Information for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible. All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are also available in the Libraries of the House.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact of the Part-time Workers Directive on staff in her Department. [109270]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office supports the removal of discrimination against part-time workers and is committed to ensuring that all of its staff achieve a satisfactory work-life balance. Part-time working is only one of several ways in which Scotland Office staff can enjoy additional flexibility in their working patterns.

  PFI Schemes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the expected saving to future funds from the private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003. [105768]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has no private finance initiative schemes planned for 2003.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much(a) her Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by her Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if she will make a statement. [92241]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date the Department has spent the following on publicity and advertising:484W

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  26,861

  270,494

  186,564

  10,390

  1Estimated

  Most of the expenditure related to electoral registration matters.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policy on(a) core hours and (b) flexible working hours is operated by her Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which her Department is responsible. [107610]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The opportunity to work flexible working hours is available to the majority of staff in the Scotland Office. Core hours are currently 10.00 am to 11.30 am and 2.30 pm to 4.00 pm. The flexible working hours policy is currently under review. The Boundary Commission is the Office's only non-Departmental public body and makes its own arrangements with regard to working hours.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Able Pupils
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the steps he is taking to meet the learning needs of the most able pupils. [110322]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government's policy on gifted and talented education is summarised in the 2001 White Paper, "Schools Achieving Success"(Cm 5320, pages 20–22). We aim to provide support through all our key teaching and learning strategies, and through a discrete programme that operates at three levels: intensive school-based activity in areas of disadvantage, provided through Excellence in Cities and related programmes; regional support across Greater London through GATE A, the gifted and talented education arm of the London Challenge; and nationally available resources, including the Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth and a national summer schools programme. We are exploring what further support we can offer to local authorities that do not benefit from Excellence in Cities or the London Challenge.

  Advanced Education Award
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on progress with the Advanced Education Award. [110925]

  Mr. Miliband
  Advanced Extension Awards (AEAs) were examined in summer 2002 for the first time. The uptake was higher than expected; the 6,841 entries for AEAs in 2002 was an increase of some 70 per cent. over the entries for the predecessor Special Papers in 2001. The range of subjects in which AEAs are available will be extended from 2005.

  Boarding Schools
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the reason for the recent increase in the charges for the welfare inspection of boarding schools; whether notice of the increase was given to the organisations which represent schools with boarders; and what representations have been received relating to the new inspection service from boarding schools. [1103551

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  It has always been the Government's policy that the recurrent regulatory costs of the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) should be borne by providers and purchasers of care. The Government consulted on the framework for fees during the summer of 2001. The consultation document, which was sent to all schools associations, set out how the NCSC was to regulate health and social care, the cost of this, its funding and fees. The costs of registration and inspection and the policy of full cost recovery (and the consequences for later years) were fully set out, as was the need for yearly fee increases.

  Since the NCSC came into operation, representations from boarding schools have related to the publication of inspection reports and the clarification of the status of a school for inspection purposes. There have been no comments on the NCSC inspection service.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 297W, on private/public boarding schools, what discussions he has had with (a) the Department of Health, (b) local authorities and (c) the Independent Schools Council regarding placing looked after children in boarding schools. [110941]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend recently met the Independent Schools Council to discuss a range of issues, including the placement of looked after children in boarding schools. This issue has not arisen to date during his regular discussions with either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health or local authority representatives.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what expenditure has been incurred by his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental bodies in 2002 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [106260]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is as follows:

  The Department commissions tightly focused market research to help inform the strategic development of, and evaluate, publicity campaigns. The spend in 2002 was £2,684,967.
  486W
  Information is not held in a form that would allow the projects to be differentiated into the categories requested; some would involve a combination of methodologies. Some campaigns where strategic communications research, creative development research or evaluation research have been commissioned in 2002 include the child care recruitment campaign, AimHigher, Modern Apprenticeships, Adult Basic Skills and development of online portals for parents, employers, schools governors and adult learners.

  The Department also conducts research to help us understand the education, skills and communication needs of our customers. It has sampled and consulted on the views of teachers, parents and other groups affected by the Department's policies on specific issues. For example, the project "A longitudinal study of factors contributing to variations in teacher effectiveness" will investigate the factors which contribute to the effectiveness of teachers at different stages in their career, working in a range of schools in different contexts, and how this changes over time. Part of this study is to track 300 teachers over three years measuring their effectiveness by pupil outcome measures and other qualitative techniques. "Sixth annual survey of parents of three and four year old children and their use of early years services" is part of a programme of annual surveys of parents of three and four-year-old children which has been undertaken to measure patterns of participation in early years education and child care. These surveys provide valuable information on changes in participation over time as early years policy is being implemented and they also provide information on parental perceptions of the quality, range and type of provision offered and used year by year. The Department plans to replace the annual survey of parents of three and four-year-old children with a new survey of parents which combines both
  the survey of parents of three and four-years-olds and
  the parents' demand for child care survey.

  This new survey will provide a comprehensive data source on parents use and perception of both child care and early years services and enable us to continue to measure changes in participation and parental perceptions over time. Again, information is not held in a form which would allow research projects to be differentiated into the categories requested; some would involve a combination of methodologies.

  Information about opinion polls, focus groups and other forms of research commissioned by the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.

  Education Funding (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding has been made available to Wandsworth Education Authority in each of the last eight years. [110461]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the Department's total Education Standard Spending Assessment, recurrent and capital grant allocated to Wandsworth Local Education Authority for the financial years 1997–98 to 2002–03. Complete figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.
  487W

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  SSA

  89.1

  93.7

  98.2

  101.9

  105.2

  102.9

  Recurrent Grant

  3.1

  1.1

  3.1

  8.8

  14.2

  22.2

  Capital Grant

  0.9

  1.6

  3.2

  7.4

  7.0

  12.3

  Total

  93.1

  96.4

  104.5

  118.1

  126.4

  137.4

  School Standards Fund
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his policy that schools will integrate activities funded by the Standards Fund into their base cost. [110068]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government are not requiring that schools continue in the same way those activities previously supported through the Standards Fund. The purpose of reducing the proportion of funding provided through ring-fenced grants is to give schools greater control of their resources. It will be for schools to decide how best take forward action in areas previously supported through these grants, taking account of local priorities.

  This year's increased funding far education of over £2.6 billion, 11.6 per cent. extra, is more than £250 million greater than the pressures due to pay, pensions, inflation and ending specific grants in order to reduce the proportion of ring-fenced funding, giving schools greater control of their resources.

  Teachers' Pay Costs
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of the change in cost to maintained schools in(a) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (b) England resulting from (i) changes in pension funds, (ii) national insurance contribution increases and (iii) the shortening of the teachers' pay spine; and what financial provision will be made to compensate for shortfall. [108287]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect information on the distribution of teaching salaries by local education authority or school. It is therefore not possible for us to calculate the additional cost of the national insurance contribution or the shortening of the teachers' pay spine for each local education authority. It will not be possible to calculate the additional cost of the increase in employers' contributions to the Teachers' Pension Scheme for each local education authority for 2003–04 until we have analysed the contributions data for March and April 2003.

  In 2003–04, the national increase in funding is sufficient to cover all the pressures that authorities face. The increase in Education Formula Spending (EPS)—the base funding for schools and LEAs that forms a part of local government funding system—and School Standards Grant—additional base funding that goes directly to every school—is a 11.6 per cent. cash increase over 2002–03. This includes a baseline adjustment to the Education Formula Spending total of £586 million to cover the pre-16 costs of the 4.75 per cent. increase in employers' contribution that arises from the inclusion of pensions increase on the scheme. Further transfers have
  488W
  been made of £20 million, to meet the additional costs of Threshold grant payments, and £44 million to the Learning and Skills Council in respect of sixth forms.

  Local education authorities will need to use their increase to cover the contributions to the Teachers' Pensions scheme; teachers' pay award for 2003–04; pay rises for non-teaching staff; inflation; and the national insurance increase.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Civil Service (People with Disabilities)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in the Department. [110521]

  Clare Short
  DFID's target for 2002–03 in respect of the proportion of people with disabilities in the Senior Civil Service was 1.7 per cent. That target has been met. Our target for 2004–05 is 3.3 per cent. We are increasingly advertising senior posts outside the Department and we use the disability media where possible. Adverts carry a statement encouraging applications from under-represented groups, including people with disabilities. We also provide financial support for a bursary scheme for Civil Servants run by the Cabinet Office, that aims to improve the representation of people with disabilities in the Senior Civil Service

  Global Health Fund
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department will come to a conclusion upon financing the next round of funding to the Global Health Fund; on what criteria this judgment will be based; and if the details of this judgment will be made publicly available. [110364]

  Clare Short
  DFID have committed $200 million (£124 million) over the five-year period to 2006 and have already disbursed $80 million.

  Wherever possible the fund should be providing support behind the strategies that help deliver sustainable improvements in health care. We will work with the Global Fund on developing methods for assessing its contribution to this agenda as future DFID funding to the fund will depend on its effectiveness. Monitoring systems are being put in place to measure the impact of its investments—the results of which will be made available by the fund.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), 13 March 2003,Official Report, column 355W, what other instruments designed to improve basic health care

  489W
  in poor countries her Department plans to use; and if she will make a statement on her conclusion that performance of the Global Health Fund has been mixed. [110424]

  Clare Short
  In addition to our commitment to the Global Fund, we have also committed £1.5 billion to support the development of health systems in developing countries. There are a variety of aid instruments available to deliver this support. We will work with governments of recipient countries to decide which is appropriate according to national priorities and plans. Our goal is to support their effort to lift themselves out of poverty.

  We believe that wherever possible the fund should be providing support behind national strategies that help deliver sustainable improvements in health care. The fund is at a very early stage of development; it is putting in place systems to monitor its performance both as an organisation, and in terms of its impact at country and global level. We will use these measures of effectiveness to assess our future contributions.

  Kenya
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of Kenya's progress towards meeting World bank and IMF targets for reform and policy changes on corruption, reform of the judicial and legal system and macro-economic framework; and what time-frame she expects for increases in financial assistance through(a) the IMF, (b) the World bank and (c) her Department. [110733]

  Clare Short
  The new Kenyan Government have made a good start in developing their policies to tackle corruption, reform the legal sector, stimulate economic growth and improve basic services. Tough decisions are needed to implement them. Provided these are taken, I would expect to see increased financial assistance from both the IMF and World bank within the next few months. My Department has already responded to the new opportunities for poverty reduction in Kenya by providing an additional £10 million to support the implementation of universal primary education. This brought total DFID spending in Kenya to over £40 million in 2002–03.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fishing Vessels
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) UK based fishing vessels, (b) Northern Ireland based fishing vessels and (c) foreign based fishing vessels were boarded by UK based enforcement officers in the last year for which figures are available. [109691]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  1,209 UK fishing vessels and 861 foreign fishing vessels were inspected at sea by British Sea Fisheries Officers during 2002, some more than once. It is not possible to readily distinguish between Great Britain and Northern Ireland vessels within the UK figure.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Contact Orders
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what alternatives there are to the court system for dealing with contact order disputes. [110369]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government encourages family mediation in suitable cases. It provides an opportunity for parties to reach a workable solution, with the assistance of an impartial third party. Evidence suggests that agreed solutions are more likely to last. Publicly funded mediation has been available throughout England and Wales since March 1997.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the annual report of the Department will be published. [107875]

  Yvette Cooper
  The spring 2003 departmental reports will be published by 16 May 2003.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by how much he intends to change his Department's staffing level(a) across the UK and (b) in Gloucestershire, in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [109714]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Staffing levels in the Department of Work and Pensions are expected to reduce by around 15 per cent. from the numbers at the end of December 2002 to around 112,000 by March 2006. Detailed information is not available by year and individual location.

  The Department has undertaken a programme of modernisation, designed to improve the service we provide to our customers. The Department is investing in new offices and new ways of working through greater use of telephony and the internet. This investment will enable us to deliver our services with fewer staff and the reductions in staffing will enable this investment to be funded. Our aim will be to deliver the changes without the need for any compulsory redundancies.

  Means-tested Benefits (Pensioners)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the take-up rates are for(a) male and (b) female pensioners for means tested benefits in the Redcar and Cleveland council area. [110854]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available. The latest estimates of take-up of income related benefits are for Great Britain only and can be found in the DWP report, "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up 2000–01". A copy of the report is available in the-Library.

  As at November 2002, there were 2,000 men and 3,000 women claiming the minimum income guarantee in the local authority area of Redcar and Cleveland.
  491W
  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the take-up rates for means tested benefits by pensioners in the Easington area were in 2002–03. [111202]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available. The latest estimates of take-up of income related benefits are for Great Britain only and can be found in the DWP report, "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-up 2000–01". A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  As at November 2002, there were 3,000 people claiming the minimum income guarantee in the local authority area of Easington.

  Source:
  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002.

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Answer of 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 605W, if he will break down the number of people who will remain without second-tier pension arrangements by (a) the self-employed, (b) those earning less than the lower earnings limit, (c) the unemployed and (d) other non-contributors. [109648]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Following the introduction of State Second Pension (S2P) in April 2002, we estimate that based upon evidence from the Family Resources Survey 2001–02 around 7 million people will not be accruing S2P rights nor making private pension provision.

  These 7 million consist of:

  (a) 1.4 million self-employed

  (b) 1.2 million employees earning less than the lower earnings limit

  (c) 1.0 million unemployed

  (d) 3.3 million other non-contributors

  These figures have been estimated using the Family Resources Survey, 2001/02. Figures do not sum to 7 million due to rounding.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what proportion of the over-70 population in Devon the state pension is their sole source of income. [109639]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 605W, if he will break down the different groups of workers who will account for the increase in those that will gain second-tier pension coverage. [109647]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We estimate that following the introduction of the State Second Pension (S2P) in April 2002, the number of people not accruing rights to S2P or making private pension arrangements will be reduced by about 4.5 million. This 4.5 million consists of 2.5 million disabled people and 2 million carers.

  These figures have been estimated using the Family Resources Survey, 2001–02.
  492W
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many advance applications have been received for the pension credit, and how many minimum income guarantee customers will automatically receive their pension credit entitlement from October. [110242]

  Maria Eagle
  The pension credit application line has been in operation since 7 April and up to 15 April had handled over 8,000 calls. Details of how many applications result from this ongoing activity will be provided on a regular basis.

  By 6 October, all minimum income guarantee customers (c.1.8 million) will have been converted to pension credit.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the number of pensioners who will benefit from changes to pension payments for long term hospital patients in 2003. [109930]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Over 20,000 pensioners are affected at any one time by reductions in their State Pension as a result of a stay in hospital of between 6 and 52 weeks. All of these pensioners will therefore benefit from the recent announcement which will change the rules so that hospital deductions are made after a stay of 52 weeks in hospital.

  Notes:

  (1) Estimate is based on September 2002 Retirement Pension administrative data.

  (2) The above estimate represents the number of pensioners who will benefit at any given time from changes on hospital deductions. It is not possible to estimate reliably the total number of pensioners who will benefit from the recent rule changes over the course of a year.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what criteria are used to assess the relative living costs of single pensioners and pensioner couples when setting the rates for the basic state pension; [110850]

  (2) by what means home-related costs are estimated when assessing the rates for the basic state pension for (a) single people and (b) married couples; [110851]

  (3) what plans he has to review the relative levels of the basic state pension for couples and for single people. [110852]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The amount of the basic state pension paid to married women based on their husband's national insurance contributions is 60 per cent. of the amount of the husband's basic state pension.

  The figure of 60 per cent. is expected to reflect the fact that some expenditure is the same for two people as for one, such as heating, lighting, rent and other shared facilities. The rate was set at the start of the National Insurance scheme and we are satisfied that this ratio is still right.

  The level of the basic state pension is increased each year to ensure that, as a minimum, it retains its value in relation to prices. Since April 2001, we have uprated basic state pension by more than the annual retail price

  493W
  increase (RPI), and for the future lifetime of this Parliament we are committed to increasing basic state pension by the higher of 2.5 per cent. and RPI.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(a) how many and (b) what grades of officials are responsible for the monitoring of progress towards the public service agreement targets of his Department. [109478]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Monitoring progress towards the department's PSA targets is undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation.

  Social Security Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received about the Social Security (Earnings Factor) Amendment Regulations. [110509]

  Malcolm Wicks
  No representations have been received.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Development Orders
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures will be implemented to encourage local authorities to use local development orders in enterprise areas, as referred to in paragraph 3.62 of the budget 2003, HC 500. [110171]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government will encourage local authorities to make use of Local Development Orders to relax planning controls in Enterprise Areas. Guidance for Local Authorities on the use of planning tools in Enterprise Areas will be covered in the forthcoming draft Planning Policy Statement, PPS4 "Planning for Economic Development" which should be issued for consultation by the end of this year.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reasons he did not separate metropolitan areas in West Midlands when calculating area cost adjustment. [109361]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The area cost adjustment is calculated using New Earnings Survey (NES) data. The data contain no information on the size of an area's resident population. Office for National Statistics uses national insurance numbers to select those who participate in the survey.

  The NES does contain information on the area in which the survey respondent lives and in which they work. Information on the area in which the survey respondent works is used in the calculation of the area cost adjustment.

  The area cost adjustment (ACA) has been calculated for each 1991 county in line with the recommendations of the independent Elliott review of the area cost adjustment. The exception to this rule is that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has further refined the
  494W
  ACA geography around London, by acknowledging fringe and non-fringe areas in the counties which surround London, and by separating Greater London into four ACA areas.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister calculates the ACA for county areas because we wish to produce robust ACA factors that are stable over time. For individual authorities the NES sample size can be small and small samples can lead to volatility. In reforming the ACA the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has had to strike a balance between more finely reflecting local labour market pressures, by calculating the ACA for smaller areas, and providing stable and robust ACA factors each year.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many employees of(a) the Social Exclusion Unit, (b) the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit and (c) the Homelessness Directorate there were in each year since their creation. [103064]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Social Exclusion Unit was created in 1997. The figures for staff in the Social Exclusion Unit are:

  1997—12

  1998—21

  1999—35

  2000—43

  2001—47

  2002—57

  2003—57.

  The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit was created in 2001. The figures for staff in the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit are:

  2001—63

  2002—133

  2003—159.

  The Homelessness Directorate was created in 2002. The figures for staff in the Homelessness Directorate are:

  2002–34

  2003–35.

  The 2003 figures are the latest available. All figures include staff on loan and secondment.

  Regions White Paper
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made towards the goal set out in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice", of(a) ensuring that regional awareness and devolution feature strongly in civil service training and development, (b) increasing the mobility of civil servants between headquarters offices, regional offices, and the Government Offices and (c) encouraging interchange between the civil service and organisations in the regions. [108586]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given by my hen. Friend the member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 602W.
  495W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently undertaking a skills audit as part of the regular review of its development and training needs and ambitions. Regional awareness and devolution will feature in this. Two seminars have been held on aspects of devolution and a leaflet on good working relationships circulated to all staff. Material on regional governance issues is available on the Office's internal electronic briefing system.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister encourages movement between different offices where that enhances Departmental effectiveness and individual career prospects. Improving mobility of staff between HQ policy sections and regionally based delivery units is a strategic priority. In the past year 26 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister HQ staff moved to Government offices.

  There are currently 103 secondees working in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister drawn from non-government organisations in the regions. In addition there are currently 18 members of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister who are working in non-government organisations in the regions. The target for the Interchange Programme for 2003–04 is to increase inward secondments by 10 and outward secondments to 50.

  Supporting People
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the implementation of Supporting People; and which responsible authorities failed to fully implement Supporting People at the date of its commencement. [108752]

  Mr. McNulty
  All of the 150 principal authorities have accepted their responsibilities for the funding and strategic planning of housing related support services in their areas under the Supporting People programme. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently in discussion with several local authorities with regard to contractual arrangements between the authority and provider, and other matters.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions his Department has had with local authority chief executives regarding the removal of billboard tobacco advertising; and what funding has been given to local authority trading standards teams to help in the removal of billboard tobacco advertising. [106571]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  No specific discussions have taken place with local authority chief executives and no specific additional funding has been provided to local authority trading standards departments regarding the removal of billboard tobacco advertising. The Department of Health published its consultation document on the regulations to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 with provisions concerning the removal of billboard advertising and a risk impact assessment. The consultation exercise ran from 22 August 2002 to 15 November 2002, which included local authority chief executives. A copy of the consultation document is available in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to provide financial help for training of Afghans who wish to prepare for democratic elections. [110340]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK is working with the Afghan Transitional Administration, the UN and international partners to secure the full implementation of the 2001 Bonn Agreement, the framework within which elections in 2004 will take place.

  We support the efforts of the Transitional Administration to rebuild the mechanisms of government. We contributed £1 million to the office of the UN Special Representative to assist in developing a political framework. We have also contributed £1 million to the Judicial Reform Commission for the development of an independent judicial system, and £500,000 to help fund a process of public consultation in advance of the Constitutional Loya Jirga, which will adopt a new Constitution for Afghanistan later this year.

  In order to enable more women to participate in both the constitutional and the electoral process the FCO is funding a WOMANKIND Worldwide project in Afghanistan, which will include advocacy and human rights awareness training for women in advance of the Constitutional Loya Jirga and the elections. We hope that the Transitional Administration will, in the near future, establish the Afghan Election Commission. The Election Commission will work with the UN on preparations for the elections, including providing training for election officials. Once the Commission has been established, we will consider what further assistance we can provide.

  Egypt
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) President Mubarak of Egypt and (b) Mr. Adek Ek Gazaar, the ambassador for Egypt regarding (i) human rights in Egypt and (ii) the imprisonment of Shaiboub William Arsal. [110830]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Officials maintain a dialogue with the Egyptian Foreign Ministry on human rights issues, although there have been no discussions in recent weeks with either President Mubarak or the Egyptian ambassador. Ministers and officials make our views known to the Egyptian authorities when we have significant concerns about human rights violations.

  We raised the case of Mr. Arsal during his original trial. His appeal is due to be heard later this year.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from NGOs regarding(a) human rights in Egypt and (b) the imprisonment of Shaiboub William Arsal in Egypt. [110831]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly receive reports from NGOs on human rights cases in Egypt. I have recently received letters from a number of hon. members expressing constituents' concerns at the imprisonment
  497W
  of Shaiboub William Arsal, and at allegations of persecution of Christians in Egypt. These letters are often inspired by NGO reports.

  EU Constitutional Treaty
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the Government has tabled an amendment to replace children's rights with human rights in the draft of the EU Constitutional Treaty. [110258]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government is keen to ensure that children's rights and interests are effectively protected.

  The first draft of the EU Constitutional Treaty issued by the Convention on the Future of Europe's Praesidium contained a reference to children's rights in a section dealing with the Union's broad external objectives. The section contained no reference to human rights more generally.

  The Government did not consider it appropriate to single out children's rights alone (important as they are) as distinct from human rights more generally, in this part of the Treaty. It was considered more appropriate to maintain provisions similar to the broader reference to human rights found in Article 11(1) of the Treaty on European Union.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends to take to ensure that the rights of children are recognised in the EU Constitutional Treaty. [110259]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government will continue to promote and protect children's rights both domestically and internationally and supports effective initiatives at European level to this end. For instance, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has specific provisions dealing with children's issues and interests. In the context of the Convention on the Future of Europe the Government is considering, whether, and if so how, the Charter should be incorporated into the Treaties.

  Iraq
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of the Executive Council of Baghdad working with the coalition; and which of the Executive Council's members are women. [110342]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I understand that the coalition Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance did not appoint the Executive Council of Baghdad. The Council have not provided details of their composition.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he received, from whom and when, between 1 January and 20 April, regarding the threat of looting of antiquities in Iraq; what his response was; and if he will make a statement. [110612]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We continue to receive a large number of representations on a wide range of issues concerning Iraq. The Coalition consulted widely before 498W
  the commencement of the military campaign on the risks to ancient historical and archaeological sites. We have stressed our commitment to protecting such sites. We want to protect resources for all Iraqis and will take what measures are necessary to do this.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to ensure the identification and return of antiquities and cultural artefacts looted from Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [110616]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are taking a number of steps to ensure the identification of antiquities and cultural artefacts looted from. Iraq, including contacting main trade bodies in the art market, sending Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) staff to Iraq, and providing funding, part of which will go to help with cultural heritage issues in Iraq.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has received from the Committee for the Release of Hostages and Detainees in Iraq. [110802]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Representatives of the Committee have recently told officials of their concerns about people they fear to be still held in Iraqi prisons.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what formal structures will be created to gather evidence from former political hostages and detainees of criminality on the part of the previous Iraqi regime. [110803]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our forces are already being tasked to secure and protect evidence of criminal activity by members of the Saddam Hussein regime. We are in the process of assessing, with the US, what help the Iraqis may need in investigating such crimes.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the number of political detainees in Iraq still incarcerated in prisons and detention centres; and what steps his Department is taking to secure their release. [110804]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Human Rights Watch estimate that nearly 300,000 Iraqis have "disappeared" since the late 1970s. We have no way of knowing how many of these were still alive or still in detention at the start of military action.

  Many prisons were emptied by the Iraqis themselves as Coalition forces advanced. In prisons where detainees have been found, UK forces are seeking to improve humanitarian conditions and to make an accurate assessment of whether the detainees were imprisoned for political or criminal reasons.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Iraqi women's organisations were invited to participate in the Baghdad Conference held in April to prepare the way for an Interim Iraqi Authority; and how many of the delegates were women. [110805]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The US led Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance issued invitations to individual Iraqis, not organisations, to participate in the meeting in Baghdad on 28 April.
  499W
  12 Iraqi women were invited, six are reported to have attended. The afternoon session discussed the formation of the IIA. This discussion was led by a woman academic who also replied to it. Another woman contributed to the debate. The Government are committed to promoting the inclusion of women in all phases and at all levels of the reconstruction of Iraq inline with UN Resolution 1325 (October 2000).

  Middle East
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department has taken following the shooting of a British subject carrying out humanitarian work in the Occupied Territories in Palestine on 10 April 2003; and if he will make a statement. [109825]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I raised Mr Hurndall's case with the Israeli Ambassador on 19 April 2003. The Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office also raised it with his Israeli counterpart on 24 April 2003. Our embassy in Tel Aviv is in frequent contact with the Israeli authorities over this case. We are doing all we can to help the Hurndall family.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Israeli Government over the shooting of Mr.Tom Hurndall by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip. [110045]

  Secondments from the FCO to private sector: March 1997-April 2003

  FCO grade

  Secondment location

  Start

  End

  D6

  RTZ

  October 1996

  March 1997

  C4

  China Britain Trade Group

  June 1996

  August 1997

  D6

  Rolls Royce

  March 1997

  November 1997

  D6

  British Aerospace

  February 1997

  November 1997

  Legal Adviser

  International Committee Red Cross

  January 1996

  January 1999

  SMS

  Unilever

  August 1997

  March 1998

  SMS

  Unilever

  November 1997

  April 1998

  D6

  Shell

  January 1997

  June 1998

  SMS

  Unilever (Shanghai)

  September 1998

  February 1999

  SMS

  Unilever

  November 1998

  February 1999

  SMS

  Standard Chartered Bank

  March 1997

  August 1998

  B3

  Glencree Centre

  December 1997

  November 1998

  SMS

  New Millennium Experience Co

  September 1998

  December 1998

  D6

  British Aerospace

  January 1998

  January 1999

  B3

  London Chamber of Commerce

  April 1997

  April 1999

  SMS

  BOC

  September 1998

  February 1999

  D6

  Price Waterhouse

  September 1997

  May 1999

  D6

  BP

  November 1997

  May 1999

  D6

  British Invisibles

  January 1999

  May 1999

  C4

  Institute of Export

  March 1998

  June 1999

  SMS

  British Aerospace

  May 1999

  November 1999

  SMS

  Prince's Trust

  October 1996

  December 1999

  B3

  China Britain Trade Group

  October 1997

  January 1999

  B3

  China Britain Business Council

  February 1999

  December 1999

  Economist

  BP

  October 1997

  December 1999

  C4

  AMEC

  November 1999

  February 2000

  SMS

  BP

  October 1999

  February 2000

  D6

  CBI

  May 1999

  March 2000

  SMS

  Smithkline Beecham International (Nairobi)

  January 2000

  March 2000

  D6

  Standard Chartered Bank

  November 1998

  March 2000

  C4

  Open Broadcast Network

  June 1998

  April 2000

  D6

  Reading University

  December 1999

  June 2000

  500W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I spoke to the Israeli Ambassador on 19 April 2003 to raise our concerns about the shooting of Mr Hurndall. I asked for a full explanation of this incident following the outcome of the Israeli investigation and detailed the Hurndall family's concerns. The Permanent-Under Secretary at the Foreign and Commonnwealth Office raised it with his Israeli counterpart on 24 April 2003. We are also making representations to the Israeli authorities through our embassy in Tel Aviv.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants have been seconded from his Department to(a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, broken down by (i) grade of civil servants seconded, (ii) location and (iii) dates of secondments in each year since 1997–98. [108105]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under Cabinet Office interchange procedures, the term secondment relates solely to movement of staff to and from the private sector and other non-civil service organisations.

  British Trade International (the joint DTI/FCO organisation leading on trade development and investment) has provided the information requested on FCO secondments to the private sector as set out in the table.

  The second table shows FCO secondments to other non-civil service organisations. The FCO does not hold comprehensive records for the year 1997, so the information begins from 1998.
  501W

  Secondments from the FCO to private sector: March 1997-April 2003

  FCO grade

  Secondment location

  Start

  End

  SMS

  Andersen Consulting

  August 1999

  May 2000

  D7

  London First Centre

  April 1998

  June 2000

  D7

  British Invisibles

  June 1998

  June 2000

  D6

  Fidelity

  June 1999

  July 2000

  C5

  ICL

  November 1998

  July 2000

  C4

  Totectors Ltd.

  May 2000

  August 2000

  SMS

  Andersen Consulting

  January 1998

  September 2000

  C4

  Fire Industry Confederation

  May 2000

  October 2000

  D6

  Standard Chartered Bank

  September 2000

  November 2000

  SMS

  Standard Chartered Bank

  October 2000

  November 2000

  C4

  Institute of Waste Management

  August 2000

  November 2000

  SMS

  New Millennium Experience Co

  April 1999

  December 2000

  C4

  Institute of Export

  August 1999

  February 2001

  SMS

  BP

  February 2001

  May 2001

  SMS

  BP Amoco Cape Town (South Africa)

  November 2000

  April 2001

  B3

  London Chamber of Commerce

  May 1999

  April 2001

  D6

  CBI

  February 2001

  June 2001

  SMS

  Standard Chartered Bank

  October 2001

  February 2002

  SMS

  Lehman Bros

  March 2000

  March 2002

  C4

  Asia House

  May 2001

  May 2002

  C4

  Halcrow (Singapore)

  February 1999

  July 2002

  C5

  Partnership Sourcing Ltd.

  April 2001

  August 2002

  D6

  BAE Systems Tokyo

  October 2001

  September 2002

  SMS

  Shell International

  May 2002

  November 200

  B3

  Bacon and Woodrow

  February 2001

  November 2002

  TP/C5

  BCB Worldwide

  August 2000

  December 2002

  SMS

  International Financial Services (formally British Invisibles)

  September 2000

  January 2003

  SMS

  Unilever

  September 2001

  March 2003

  C4

  B. Link Manchester (formerly Oldham Chamber)

  October 1998

  September 2003

  C4

  United Response

  August 2002

  August 2003

  C4

  Petrofac Chemicals

  May 2000

  July 2003

  B3

  London Chamber of Commerce

  June 2001

  June 2003

  D6

  Technical Assistance and Development Services (TADS) Ltd.

  April 2002

  April 2004

  TC/5

  Partnership Sourcing Ltd.

  October 2002

  October 2003

  TC/5

  CBI

  October 2002

  May 2003

  C4

  Business Link West

  November 2002

  November 2003

  B3

  Greater Merseyside Enterprise

  January 2003

  January 2004

  C4

  North West Development Agency

  January 2003

  January 2004

  SMS

  International Financial Services (formally British Invisibles)

  January 2003

  January 2005

  T/D6

  BCCB

  January 2003

  January 2005

  C4

  South Yorkshire International Trade Council

  March 2003

  March 2004

  B4

  BL Notts

  March 2003

  August 2003

  Non private sector

  FCO grade

  Secondment location

  Start

  End

  SMS

  EU Commission

  01/01/1998

  01/06/1999

  D6

  Turks and Caicos

  01/03/1998

  01/12/1999

  D6

  House of Lords

  01/04/1998

  19/04/2002

  D6

  Council of European Union

  08/07/1998

  01/08/2001

  SMS

  SHAPE

  01/08/1998

  01/09/2002

  SMS

  Career Dev Attachment (CDA) Harvard

  01/08/1998

  01/06/1999

  SMS

  Ditchley Foundation

  01/08/1998

  01/08/2001

  SMS

  UN

  01/08/1998

  01/01/2000

  SMS

  EU Commission

  01/09/1998

  01/09/2000

  C5

  EnergyCharter Secretariat, Brussels

  15/10/1998

  15/10/2001

  C4

  CDA Ecole National d'Admin (ENA)

  01/11/1998

  01/07/1999

  SMS

  Buckingham Palace

  01/01/1999

  15/09/2002

  SMS

  CDA Sussex University

  01/01/1999

  01/12/1999

  D6

  Imperial College

  01/01/1999

  09/04/2000

  D6

  UN

  30/01/1999

  07/12/2001

  SMS

  Office of High Rep Sarajevo

  01/02/1999

  01/02/2000

  D6

  IMF

  01/02/1999

  25/02/2002

  D6

  International Org for Migration Geneva

  19/04/1999

  09/04/2002

  SMS

  CDA Harvard

  01/07/1999

  01/04/2000

  B3

  Football Association

  01/07/1999

  31/08/2000

  D6

  London Business School

  26/08/1999

  26/08/2001

  SMS

  EU Commission

  01/09/1999

  01/09/2004

  D6

  EU Commission

  01/09/1999

  01/09/2002

  C4

  NGO Article 19

  01/09/1999

  01/12/1999

  502W 503W

  Non private sector

  FCO grade

  Secondment location

  Start

  End

  D6

  CDA ENA

  01/09/1999

  01/03/2001

  D6

  Office of Special Coord, Brussels

  01/09/1999

  13/08/2001

  D6

  Academic Study Masters

  01/10/1999

  01/10/2001

  SMS

  CDA St. Anthony's College

  01/10/1999

  01/06/2000

  SMS

  EU Commission

  01/10/1999

  01/10/2004

  D6

  EU Commission

  01/12/1999

  15/07/2002

  D6

  EU Commission

  01/12/1999

  01/11/2000

  D6

  CDA NATO Defence College, Rome

  01/02/2000

  01/07/2000

  D6

  CU Commission

  01/02/2000

  28/01/2002

  D6

  States of Jersey: St. Helier

  01/04/2000

  01/09/2003

  SMS

  Career Development Attachment

  01/05/2000

  01/12/2000

  SMS

  New Zealand MFA

  01/05/2000

  01/12/2000

  D6

  St. James's Palace

  01/06/2000

  26/06/2003

  D6

  Population Council HGO, Hanoi

  01/07/2000

  01/07/2001

  SMS

  CDA Harvard

  01/07/2000

  01/07/2001

  D6

  Oxfam

  04/09/2000

  13/07/2001

  D6

  DFA Dublin CDA

  01/10/2000

  01/04/2001

  D6

  NGO Interights

  23/10/2000

  31/12/2000

  SMS

  Romanian MFA

  01/12/2000

  01/12/2001

  SMS

  German MFA

  08/01/2001

  08/08/2001

  SMS

  Mostar Deputy High Rep/Sarajevo

  14/01/2001

  14/01/2003

  D6

  EU Comm

  01/02/2001

  01/07/2003

  SMS

  OSCE Belgrade

  21/02/2001

  28/02/2003

  D6

  Buckingham Palace

  12/06/2001

  01/06/2004

  SMS

  CDA St. Anthony's College

  01/10/2001

  13/07/2002

  D6

  German MFA

  04/10/2001

  15/06/2002

  SMS

  SHAPE

  01/11/2001

  15/03/2003

  SMS

  RCDS

  01/12/2001

  01/12/2003

  D6

  Office of Czech President's Office

  02/01/2002

  31/03/2002

  D6

  Czech MFA

  01/04/2002

  15/01/2003

  SMS

  EU Council Secretariat

  01/05/2002

  15/05/2007

  SMS

  OHR Sarajevo

  15/05/2002

  15/05/2004

  D6

  CDAENA

  01/01/2003

  01/09/2003

  SMS

  St. James's Palace

  14/04/2003

  14/04/2006

  Notes:

  The FCO grading system equates as follows:

  SMS = Senior Civil Service

  D7 = Home Civil Service 6

  D6 = Home Civil Service 7

  C5 = Senior Executive Officer

  C4 = Higher Executive Officer

  B3 = Executive Officer

  US Forces (Indian Ocean)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long US military forces will be stationed on British territory in the Indian Ocean. [109642]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  HMG in 1966 and subsequently has entered into a series of bilateral agreements with the United States on the use of the British Indian Ocean Territory under which the whole territory is to remain available for the defence needs of the two countries for an initial period of 50 years from 1966, and thereafter for a further period of 20 years unless either party has given prior notice to terminate it.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on accident and 504W
  emergency services at (a) Harold Wood Hospital in the London Borough of Havering and (b) Oldchurch Hospital Romford. [108663]

  Mr. Hutton
  Improving patients' experience of emergency care is essential. In light of this, Reforming Emergency Care was launched in October 2001 supported by £118 million investment. It sets a long-term programme of reform supported by extra investment and new capacity to address one of the public's key concerns about the national health service—waiting in accident and emergency.

  Harold Wood hospital does not have an A&E service but a minor injuries unit.

  Barking Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust have invested £102,000 in the following initiatives at Oldchurch hospital:
  Improvement of the medical assessment unit and an additional emergency physician at Oldchurch hospital to increase throughput in A&E.
  Improving primary care working at Oldchurch with the aim of re-directing primary care presentations in A&E.
  A sector wide project manager based at the Oldchurch site.
  505W
  The NHS Plan set the target to reduce by 2004, the maximum time any patient spends in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours. In 2003 Barking, Havering and Redbridge achieved the interim target of 90 per cent., of patients spending no more than four hours in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge.

  Asthma
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment has been made of numbers of people suffering from asthma in each year since 1997; what the average age of diagnosis was; and if he will make a statement; [110030]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the causes of asthma; and what proposals he has to address them and raise awareness; [110031]

  (3) what measures are in place to ensure that asthma sufferers have access to a local health professional with specific asthma training; [110032]

  (4) what specialist services are available for those suffering from severe asthma; and what charges are placed on medication and treatment; [110034]

  (5) what proposals he has to (a) speed up diagnosis and treatment of asthma and (b) have an asthma plan in place. [110033]

  Jacqui Smith
  Patients with asthma are able to access the full range of National Health Service support services in both primary and secondary care settings. Inhalers contain drugs to relieve the symptoms, though people who suffer particularly severe attacks may also use 'preventers' to reduce reactions in advance.

  People including those suffering from asthma are entitled to free prescriptions if they are aged under 16, or under 19 and in full time education, or aged 60 or over, or they (or their partner) are receiving income support, income based jobseeker's allowance or are named on a NHS Tax Credit Exemption Certificate. They may also claim help under the NHS low income scheme.

  Information is not centrally available concerning numbers of asthma sufferers since 1997, however hospital episode statistics data shows that there were the following admissions to hospital between 1997–2002.

  Year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Admissions

  71,434

  69,824

  66,054

  60,376

  60,134

  People with asthma will benefit from the emerging expert patients programme which will via the NHS—provide training in self-management skills for people with long term chronic conditions. We have now commenced on a fourth wave pilot phase for the remaining selected primary care trusts (PCTs), with activity taking place on a generic basis. The previous pilots have been well received by the course participants. It is the role of health authorities, in partnership with PCTs, to decide what services to provide for their populations including those with asthma. They are best placed to understand local health needs and commission services to meet them.
  506W
  We have welcomed guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on inhalers for children under five in September 2000 and for older children, aged five to 15, on April 11 2002. The NICE recommendations provide clear evidence based on guidance on the most suitable inhalers for children.

  The Government considers the provision of first class health services for asthma sufferers as very important and is involved in a broad spectrum of research and development work into the disease. The principal body providing Government funding in the scientific area is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Trade and Industry and it spends around 2 million a year on asthma research. In addition to this, a major joint initiative is being funded by the Department of Health, the Department for the Environment, Transport and Regions and the MRC into air pollution and respiratory disease.

  A new general medical services contract agreement was launched on Friday 21 February 2003, which, if accepted by the profession, will lead to an unprecedented level of new investment in general practice to deliver a wider range of high quality services with better clinical outcomes for all patients.

  The Department of Health and the Royal College of General Practitioners, under the supervision of a national development group of key stakeholders, have produced a framework for implementing a scheme for GPs with special interests and clinical guidelines for GPs with special interests in specific specialities, including respiratory medicine. Whilst this document focuses on GPs with special interests, it is recognised that specialist nurses already play a major role in the management of respiratory conditions, and much of the GP role could equally apply to an appropriately qualified specialist nurse. It is likely that the core activities of a GP with special interests will vary according to local need and resources, but are likely to focus on asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease.

  The national service framework (NSF) for children is being developed to set standards for the care of children and young people to ensure all children and young people have access to good quality care. Whilst it is not the intention to look at specific conditions in the NSF, it has been agreed that asthma, as one of the most common childhood conditions, should be used as one of the exemplars which will accompany the main NSF report. These will illustrate how the standards should be applied to ensure that services delivered to children are effective and meet their needs.

  The NSF for older people has made a commitment to develop a service model on respiratory diseases in older people within the ten-year framework. The development of this service model under the NSF for older people will apply for all those who need these services, regardless of their age, much as the current NSF service models on stroke and dementia.

  Cardiovascular Disease
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of how much money would be saved by the NHS through earlier detection of cardiovascular disease if all men with erectile dysfunction sought treatment from their GP; [108163]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of men estimated to have been deterred from seeking medical help for erectile dysfunction by the restrictions on GPs' ability to prescribe treatments; and if he will make a statement; [108165]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the number of new cases of cardiovascular disease he would expect to be detected if the current restrictions on GPs' ability to prescribe treatments for erectile dysfunction were removed; [108164]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the number of men estimated to have erectile dysfunction but unable to obtain treatments from GPs on the NHS because of the restrictions on GPs' ability to prescribe those treatments; [108167]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the cost to the NHS of removing current restrictions on GPs' ability to prescribe treatments on the NHS to men with erectile dysfunction; [108168]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the number of men with cardiovascular disease who are unable to obtain NHS treatments from GPs because of the restrictions on the GPs' ability to prescribe relevant treatments; and if he will make a statement. [108166]

  Ms Blears
  We have made no such assessments, but the decision was taken to restrict the availability of treatments for erectile dysfunction on the national health service because of the high potential costs of providing these treatments and the consequent risk that resources might be diverted from other services such as cancer. Following a public consultation exercise undertaken in 2001 we estimated that the cost of removing the restrictions might be in the order of an additional £100 million a year.

  Chiropody Services (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of chiropody services in Buckinghamshire. [109430]

  Ms Blears
  Primary care trusts now have the responsibility of improving the health of the community, securing the provision of high quality services and integrating health and social care locally. They have the resources to commission services and to identify the number of professional staff that they need to deliver those services. This process provides the means for addressing local needs within the health community, including the provision of chiropody services.

  Cholesterol Drugs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make drugs that substantially lower cholesterol available over the counter. [109088]
  508W
  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan set out the Government's commitment to make more medicines available over the counter (OTC). The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been proactively encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to consider which medicines might be suitable to make more widely available as part of the MHRA's work to fulfil this commitment.

  Any application to change the legal status of a particular medicine for lowering blood cholesterol will be carefully considered against the criteria for prescription-only status set out in European and United Kingdom legislation and would be subject to public consultation. Patient safety is the prime consideration and any application would be required to demonstrate its safety in use and that relevant patient and professional education issues have been adequately addressed.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional funding he has provided to local authorities in Buckinghamshire to take on responsibilities held by community health councils. [110414]

  Ms Blears
  Funding to support local authority scrutiny of the national health service is currently being considered within the Department and an announcement will be made shortly. We are, therefore, unable to give specific funding details for Buckinghamshire.

  The £23.5 million previously made available to fund Community Health Councils (CHCs) is contributing to the much wider programme of Government initiatives to support and strengthen patient and public involvement nationally.

  The functions of CHCs are being picked up by a range of mechanisms, which include patient advice and liaison services, independent complaints advocacy services (ICAS), patient's forums, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) and the scrutiny of health services by local authority overview and scrutiny committees. Overall, the funding has increased greatly from the £23.5 million previously spent on CHCs. The funds being made available to the CPPIH to cover patient's forums and ICAS is £35.5 million alone.

  Desumo Information and Healthcare Ltd.
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the decision of the National Care Standards Commission to de-register Desumo Information and Healthcare Ltd.; and what implications this has for its provision of single vaccine cover for measles, mumps and rubella in the South-West. [109030]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 April 2003]: The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) registered Desumo on 22 April 2003. It had not de-registered Desumo prior to that. The NCSC processed Desumo's application as soon as it had obtained from the organisation sufficient information to enable it to be registered. In the meantime, the clinic had arranged for

  509W
  some vaccines to be administered by a national health service doctor, who was not required to be registered with the NCSC.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to encourage research into curing and treating diabetes. [110834]

  Mr. Lammy
  The main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC spent an estimated £8.9 million on research into diabetes in 2001–02.

  The Department and the MRC worked together with Diabetes UK and the Wellcome Trust on the Review of Current and Future Research on Diabetes, published in October 2002. The review was intended to inform the development of future research into diabetes sponsored by the Department and the MRC, and to be of use to other agencies funding research. A Department led task group with participation from the MRC, Diabetes UK and others has been established to determine how best to take forward the proposals in the review. A copy of the review is available in the Library.

  The Department also funds some direct costs of diabetes research through a variety of programmes. It also provides, through the Concordat with the MRC and equivalent arrangements with the medical charities, the considerable service support costs for all clinical research taking place within the National Health Service. The amount of such service support funding for diabetes research is being established and will be reported on at a later date. The scale of this funding, however, can be judged from the NHS national research register which gives details of over 1,600 diabetes research studies undertaken in NHS hospital trusts which receive service support.

  Doctors
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors have been recruited from post-graduate courses by NHS hospitals in each of the past five years. [110949]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's work force census does not collect data on numbers of doctors recruited by National Health Service hospitals from post-graduate courses.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the(a) British Medical Association and (b) University Deans of Medicine on meeting the target of 25,000 doctors by 2008. [109736]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has regular meetings with the British Medical Association and other representative bodies of the medical profession to discuss a range of issues.

  Department officials are in regular contact with the Council of Heads of Medical Schools, whose membership normally includes the Head or Dean of
  510W
  each university medical school in the United Kingdom and Colleges of the University of London with a medical school.

  EU Advisory Committees (Dental Practitioner and Nursing Training)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU Advisory Committee on the Training of Dental Practitioners, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House; [110286]

  (2) if he will list (a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU Advisory Committee on Training in Nursing, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110287]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Advisory Committees on Nursing and Dental Training were set up to advise the European Commission and member states on matters relating to the training of nurses responsible for general care and dentists under European Union directives guaranteeing free movement and automatic recognition of qualifications.

  Each advisory committee has three members from each member state—one each from the practising profession, the education establishments and the competent authority. Three alternates are appointed on the same basis. No Government officials sit on the Committees.

  The Advisory Committees have not met, had any items on their agenda, or made any decisions since January 2002. The terms of office of members have expired and the Commission has not sought further nominations.

  Food Advertising
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 510W, on the advertising of food, when he expects the review of research to be completed. [107722]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency is expecting the report of this review to be completed and published by September 2003.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Department of Health funding for foundation hospitals will vary according to the revenue a foundation hospital receives from other sources. [108319]

  Mr. Hutton
  All national health service foundation trusts will be free to generate NHS income through their legally binding contracts with primary care trusts. All NHS foundation trusts will have to observe their terms
  511W
  of authorisation, including any provisions limiting the amount of income they generate from private patient work.

  General Dentistry Service
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have used the facilities of the General Dentistry Service in Gloucestershire in each year since its inception. [109404]

  Ms Blears
  The information available is for the number of adult courses of treatment carried out by the general dental service in Gloucestershire Family Health Service Authority and Gloucestershire Health Authority for the years ending March 1992 to 2002. This data is shown in the table.

  General Dental Service: Number of adult courses of treatment, year ending March 1992–2002—Gloucestershire Family Health Service Authority/Health Authority

  Thousands

  Year ending March

  Number of claims

  1992

  358

  1993

  350

  1994

  261

  1995

  244

  1996

  234

  1997

  222

  1998

  215

  1999

  219

  2000

  219

  2001

  210

  2002

  203

  Note:

  A course of treatment may involve one or more visits to the dentist. A patient may have several courses in a single year. This information is not available for previous years. Figures for children are not given because courses pf treatment for children exclude courses where a payment claim is not required.

  National Health Service dental services are also provided by the community dental service and the personal dental services.

  Hospital Building Programme
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the amount of expenditure on the hospital building programme in each of the last five available years, excluding PFI contracts. [110796]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not separately identify expenditure on the hospital building programme. The Department does collect information on total capital expenditure in the National Health Service. This is shown in the table below.

  Financial Year

  Total (£000)

  1997–1998

  1,153,298

  1998–1999

  1,114,241

  1999–2000

  1,635,032

  2000–2001

  1,744,304

  2001–2002

  1,969,080

  Total:

  7,615,955

  Source:

  NHS Trust summarisation schedules 1997–98 to 2001–02—net book value of additional purchased capital acquisitions by NHS Trusts.

  Hospital Gardens
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts contract out(a) partly and (b) completely gardening work on their estates. [109893]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]: This information is not collected centrally. The provision of gardening services is a matter for individual National Health Service trusts.

  Inventures Disposals
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Southlands Hospital land in Shoreham has been included in the bulk sale of properties in the Inventures disposals; what(a) price and (b) terms will be secured by its sale; and whether it will be sold with planning permission. [109894]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]: The surplus parts of the hospital have been included in the portfolios of properties that will form the basis of the proposed real estate partnership with the private sector. Miller/Bank of Scotland have been chosen as preferred partner. The price and other terms of the sale are commercially confidential.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of the inventures disposals which will be sold without planning permission; and if he will make a statement on his policy on the sale of NHS property without planning permission. [109895]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 Apri1 2003]: Details of which properties will be the subject of the proposed real estate partnership with Miller/Bank of Scotland are still being finalised.

  In selling National Health Service property, the principles of Government Accounting and the Department of Health's own guidance, Estatecode, are followed.

  Looked After Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with(a) local authorities and (b) the Independent Schools Council regarding placing looked after children in boarding schools. [110935]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills recently met the Independent Schools Council to discuss a range of issues, including the placement of looked after children in boarding schools. This issue has not arisen to date during my regular discussions with him or in discussions with local authority representatives.

  Meningitis C Vaccine
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the take-up of the meningitis C vaccine by targeted groups. [105900]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 Apri1 2003]: Information on uptake of routine childhood vaccines are collected through the COVER (define) programme. These

  513W
  data are published on a quarterly basis in the "Communicable Disease Report (CDR) Weekly" and are available at www.phls.org.uk/publications/cdr/index.html

  The most recent quarterly uptake figures—October to December 2002—for the meningitis C conjugate vaccine for England at one and two years of age were 90 per cent. and 92 per cent. respectively.

  Vaccine coverage in the catch-up campaign by age and school year

  Age

  Birth cohort

  Approximate date of vaccination

  Total eligible

  Coverage (percentage)

  <12 months

  11 January 1999 to 28 July 1999

  January 2000

  283,198

  80.4

  1- < 2 years

  11 January 1998 to 10 January 1999

  January 2000

  526,802

  83.8

  2–5 years

  1 September 1994 to 10 January 1998

  March 2000

  1,810,884

  75.6

  School year (age inferred)

  1 (5–6)

  1 September 1993 to 31 August 1994

  September 2000

  517,088

  86.3

  2 (6–7)

  1 September 1992 to 31 August 1993

  September 2000

  525,151

  86.7

  3 (7–8)

  I September 1991 to 31 August 1992

  September 2000

  545,352

  87.4

  4 (8–9)

  1 September 1990 to 31 August 1991

  September 2000

  552,993

  87.6

  5 (9–10)

  1 September 1989 to 31 August 1990

  May 2000

  549,518

  89.0

  6 (10–11)

  1 September 1988 to 31 August 1989

  May 2000

  542,557

  88.0

  7 (11–12)

  1 September 1987 to 31 August 1988

  March 2000

  556,661

  87.9

  8 (12–13)

  1 September 1986 to 31 August 1987

  March 2000

  540,878

  87.2

  9 (13–14)

  1 September 1985 to 31 August 1986

  March 2000

  530,547

  85.5

  10 (14–15)

  1 September 1984 to 31 August 1985

  March 2000

  519,446

  83.0

  11 (15–16)

  1 September 1983 to 31 August 1984

  November 1999

  484,751

  83.7

  12 (16–17)

  1 September 1982 to 31 August 1983

  November 1999

  300,429

  70.3

  13 (17–18)

  1 September 1981 to 31 August 1982

  November 1999

  265,423

  60.3

  All school years

  —

  —

  6,532,229

  84.6

  1—

  —

  —

  767,431

  43.0

  115–17 y/o not in education. Only 32/155 trusts were able to provide vaccine coverage outside of school. It was assumed that this was representative and the number of 15 to 17-year-olds not in education was equal to the ONS population estimate for this age group minus denominator data supplied by health trusts.

  Mental Health Accommodation
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all mental health hospital accommodation in Hampshire meets the criteria for the targets set in February 1998 regarding the safety, privacy and dignity of patients; and if he will make a statement. [110338]

  Ms Blears
  All mental health hospital accommodation in Hampshire is fully compliant with the criteria set to protect the safety, privacy and dignity of patients.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were registered with NHS dentists in each of the last 10 years in the area covered by the Cotswold and Vale PCT. [109403]

  Ms Blears
  At 30 September 2002, 70,000 patients were registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist in Cotswold and Vale Primary Care Trust. For the period of the last 10 years, registration data is available for the Gloucestershire Health Authority and Family Health Service Authority areas. The information shown in the table is for 30 September for the years 1993 to 2001 and for 31 August 2002.
  514W
  Information on the uptake rate of the meningitis C conjugate vaccine in children and adults during the meningitis C campaign was published last year in "Communicable Disease and Public Health"—September 2002, vol 5 (3): 177–264. The percentage of children and adults immunised through this programme is shown in the table. There is no information on uptake in adults aged over 18 years of age.

  A copy of this paper is available in the Library.

  General Dental Service: Number of persons registered with a dentist, 1993 to 2002—Gloucestershire Family Health Service Authority/Health Authority

  Thousand

  At 30 September

  Number of persons registered

  1993

  310

  1994

  287

  1995

  257

  1996

  247

  1997

  245

  19981

  214

  19991

  216

  20001

  212

  20011

  203

  20021

  199

  1 Registration data for these years in not comparable with earlier years due to the change in the registration period. 2002 data is for 31 August.

  Registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentists within 15 months and so the registration figures exclude patients who haven't been to their GDS dentist within the past 15 months. Also excluded from the figures are patients who receive dental treatment from other National Health Service dental services, including dental access centres.
  515W
  The number of patients registered with a dentist prior to November 1997 cannot be compared to those of later years due to the change in the registration period for new registration from September 1996.

  Some of the reduction in recorded registration numbers is due to improvements in the methods of removing duplicate registration records, which were first employed by the Dental Practice Board in 1993.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints each primary care trust in Gloucestershire has received in the last year from people who cannot get access to NHS dentists. [109405]

  Ms Blears
  The information is not collected centrally.

  NHS Funding
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was not able to be used by the NHS by the end of the financial year 2002–03, has been handed back to the Treasury. [109413]

  Mr. Hutton
  None. Any under spends will be available for spending by the National Health Service in 2003–04 under Her Majesty's Treasury's end year flexibility arrangements.

  NHS Litigation Costs
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the NHS litigation costs for 2002 as estimated by the National Audit Office is related to maternity cases. [109386]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on the National Health Service litigation costs of maternity cases is not collected centrally.

  Oldchurch Hospital, Havering
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on staffing levels for Ward C5 at Oldchurch Hospital in the London Borough of Havering; and what discussions he has had with(a) managers of the hospital and (b) Havering Primary Care Trust about the ward. [109503]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the staffing levels of individual wards is not held centrally.

  I have had no discussions with Barking, Havering and Redbridge National Health Service Trust or Havering Primary Care Trust (PCT) about the ward.

  However, the North East London Strategic Health Authority Directors, who now performance manage Barking, Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust and Havering PCT, regularly meet with trust management.

  Overseas Nurse Advice Line
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls the overseas nurse advice line has received in the last month. [110152]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service international nurses advice line received 11 completed calls during March 2003.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham can expect answers to his questions, references: 100537 and 100499 of 26 February 2003. [109112]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 29 April and to the reply I gave him on 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 612W.

  Patient Referrals
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients have been referred to(a) private hospitals and (b) hospitals in European countries for treatment in each year since 1997: and what the cost was to the NHS of these referrals. [105949]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not hold information centrally on the total number of national health service patients referred to private hospitals. No patients were referred for treatment abroad under the direct referral system before 2002. In 2002, 228 patients were treated abroad. To date, a further 204 patients have been treated abroad in 2003.

  190 patients were referred abroad as part of a pilot project between January and April 2002. The project was funded centrally, and the overall cost was £1.1 million. Following on from the pilot, a further £2.1 million of central money has been spent to fund treatment abroad in five different health authority areas. The amount spent by NHS commissioners on purchasing treatment from private sector providers is not separately recorded.

  Prison Nurses
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses there are with experience of professionally working in prisons in each primary care trust. [109696]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not collect information on the number of nurses employed by primary care trusts working professionally in prisons.

  Private Hospitals (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were carried out in private hospitals in Buckinghamshire at NHS expense broken down by(a) hospital and (b) PCT area in the past year. [110332]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested about the number of operations carried out in private hospitals in Buckinghamshire is not collected centrally.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many additional training places for radiographers have been created in each of the last six years; [110382]

  (2) how many radiographers have completed training in each of the last six years. [110381]
  517W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of training places for radiographers in the last six years is shown in the table.

  Radiographer training commissions

  Year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revised

  Source

  BS

  A/R

  A/R

  QMR Q4

  QMR Q4

  QMR Q4

  All radiographers

  593

  582

  646

  685

  761

  948

  Diagnostic

  452

  447

  507

  541

  597

  730

  Therapeutic

  141

  135

  139

  141

  164

  218

  BS = Balance sheet

  A/R = NMET Accountability Report

  QMR = NMET Quarerly Monitoring Reports

  Information on the number of radiographers completing training is not collected centrally. The Health Professions Council holds information on the numbers of radiographers on its register, a prerequisite for employment in the United Kingdom. This information can be obtained through Claire Harkin at clair.harkin@pc.uk.org.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacant NHS posts for therapeutic and diagnostic radiographers there were in March in(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each NHS trust. [110383]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of therapeutic and diagnostic radiographer posts that have been vacant for three months or more is collected in the National Health Service workforce vacancy survey. The information available for March 2002 has been placed in the Library.

  Sheep (Spongiform Encephalopathies)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Food Standards Agency's policy on testing sheep for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies using the test developed by Professor Prusiner of the University of California. [109850]

  Ms Blears
  Testing of sheep for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the rural affairs Departments of the Devolved Administrations. I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that its policy is that such testing should be carried out using the most appropriate European Union approved test.

  Sustainable Policies (NHS)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advances have been made in producing a sustainable transport policy for the NHS. [108682]

  Mr. Hutton
  "NHS Environmental Strategy for the NHS", issued in April 2002 by NHS Estates, an Executive Agency of the Department of Health, requires the national health service to produce sustainable transport policies including healthy transport plans.
  518W
  Between 1996–97 and 2001–02, the number of training places for radiographers has increased by 355 or 60 per cent., with a further increase of around 260 planned for the current financial year.

  NHS Estates, the Department of Health and Sustrans have given recently a series of seminars around England for the NHS on the benefits of, and how to produce such plans.

  The NHS will also be required to produce transport plans as part of local authority planning approval process for any new capital development scheme.

  Teenage Cancer
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many teenagers with cancer have been treated in adult wards in the last year at(a) Worthing Hospital and (b) Sussex County Hospital, Brighton; [109924]

  (2) what steps are being taken by the Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust to improve diagnosis of teenage cancers; [109925]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce a teenager cancer trust unit in the East Worthing and Shoreham constituency. [109923]

  Ms Blears
  Information at ward level is not centrally collected. Hospital episode statistics only holds data for admitted patient care at the level of national health service hospitals trusts.

  There are no current plans to introduce a teenage cancer trust unit in the East Worthing and Shoreham constituency. However, the Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust is committed to working with other members of the Sussex Cancer Network to strengthen and further develop local services for teenage patients.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is in the process of updating the Department of Health's Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer, to help general practitioners identify those patients who are most likely to have cancer and therefore require urgent assessment by a specialist. NICE is also producing Improving Outcomes guidance for child and adolescent cancers to ensure services for these patients are capable of achieving consistently good outcomes.

  In addition, we are providing funding through the national cancer research network to enable more teenage cancer patients to enter trials of the latest treatments.

  Thoracic Medicine
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients waited up to(a) four weeks, (b) 13 weeks and (c) 26 weeks for their first outpatient appointment following GP referral; and how many patients were waiting for over 13 weeks at quarter end, for thoracic medicine, in (i) England and (ii) each NHS region in each quarter since Q1 1997. [101583]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested for Q1 1997–98 to Q3 2002–03 has been placed in the Library. Over this period the number of people waiting over 26 weeks for their first outpatient appointment in thoracic medicine fell from 121 at end June 1997 to none at end December 2002.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the marketing materials not covered by the ban on tobacco advertising. [109202]

  Ms Blears
  When fully in force, the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 will provide a comprehensive ban on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products with certain limited exceptions. The Act does not list marketing materials but does define "tobacco advertisement' and 'tobacco product'.

  In the Act, 'tobacco advertisement' means an advertisement:
  whose purpose is to promote a tobacco product, or
  whose effect is to do so and
  `tobacco product' means a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed.

  Section 4 of the Act identifies exclusions. These relate to:
  tobacco trade communications aimed at specified trade contacts;
  communications made in reply to a particular request by an individual for information about a tobacco product;
  publications (other than an in-flight magazine) whose principal market is not the United Kingdom (or any part of it), or if it is contained in any internet version of such a publication.

  Section 4 also provides for the appropriate Minister to provide in regulations that no offence is committed if a tobacco advertisement:
  is in a place or on a website where tobacco products are offered for sale; and
  complies with requirements specified in the regulations.

  Section 5 provides defences.

  Section 6 of the Act provides an exemption if the tobacco advertisement:
  was in or fixed to the outside of the premises of a specialist tobacconist;
  was not for cigarettes or hand-rolling tobacco; and
  complied with any requirements specified by the appropriate Minister in regulations in relation to tobacco advertisements on the premises of specialist tobacconists.

  Section 9 permits the giving away of products or coupons that are aimed at specified tobacco trade contacts.
  520W
  Section 11 provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations governing brandsharing. It is intended that the regulations will set out limited circumstances in which brandsharing will be permissible.

  Section 20 provides for transitional provisions to be made in regulations covering tobacco sponsorship agreements. The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Sponsorship) Regulations 2003 were made under that section and came into force on 14 February 2003.

  Draft regulations governing point of sale advertising and brandsharing have been consulted on and will, when in final form, be notified to the European Commission under the Technical Standards Directive 98/48/EC. Until the regulations are made, temporary provision is included in the Orders bringing the Act into force. In particular, the Orders permit the promotion of tobacco products in a place or on a website where tobacco products are offered for sale and provide exceptions for brandshared goods from various offences created by the Act.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for an out-patient appointment(a) in Greater London and (b) in England was in (i) the latest period for which figures are available and (ii) May 1997. [101313]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the estimated median waiting time, in weeks, for first outpatient appointments in London (defined by the five London strategic health authorities), and England at the end of March 1997 and December 2002, the latest position. Over this period the number of people in London waiting over 26 weeks for their first outpatient appointment fell from 15,200 at end March 1997 to five at end December 2002. The equivalent figures for England are 70,700 to less than 700.

  Estimated median waiting time1 for first outpatient appointment following written GP referral

  London

  England

  March 1997

  6.06

  6.05

  December 2002 (latest published quarterly data)

  7.53

  7.55

  1The medians in the table are based on aggregate data, categorised into waiting time bands, and do not reflect shifts in the waiting time profiles within these bands, only between bands. Progress on delivering maximum waiting times may not necessarily translate into a reduction in the median waiting time, because of shifts in low time bands.

  Source:

  Estimated using data from Department of Health form QM08

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Off-road Vehicles
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals for additional powers for police to confiscate vehicles used illegally off-road. [108613]
  521W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have provided new powers under the Police Reform Act 2002 to supplement the offences in the Road Traffic Act 1988. As from January 2003, where a vehicle committing one of the Road Traffic Act offences is being driven in such a way that it is causing or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public, a constable in uniform is empowered to stop and seize it. He will be able to enter premises other than a private dwelling to effect the seizure. The owner will be able to retrieve the vehicle on payment of removal and storage charges. Detailed arrangements have been made by regulation to ensure that the owner is not required to pay when the vehicle was used without his consent.

  The new powers will enable the police to deal with vehicles being used illegally off road more effectively by putting an immediate stop to such anti-social behaviour. Their use is currently being developed by the police and will be monitored to ensure it is effective.

  In addition there is an existing power in statute for magistrates to remove driving licences for summary offences. We intend to notify the courts that exercise of this power may be an appropriate response for particular offences, including the illegal and anti-social use of a vehicle off-road.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109482]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on combating anti-social behaviour in Wales. [110403]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  All of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill is applicable to Wales, although it will be for the National Assembly for Wales to take forward the devolved measures. Officials in the Home Office have been working with their colleagues at the National Assembly for Wales on the development of the White Paper CM5778 and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 7 April 2003,Official Report, column 35W, on command paper 5778, which groups of charities were consulted; and if he will list the meetings that were held. [108992]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Director and staff of the antisocial behaviour unit met with various individuals and organisations during the preparation of the White Paper.

  This included the following charities: Age Concern, National Children's Bureau, Parentline and National Family and Parenting Institute.

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he intends to make to his Department's procedures for determining applications for NASS support by asylum seekers who have been refused as a result of not having applied for asylum as soon as is reasonably practicable. [109569]

  Beverley Hughes
  Following the judgment of Mr. Justice Collins of 19 February on the application of Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, we anticipated all of the main points of the Court of Appeal judgment of 18 March. Changes to the procedure have been made. For example:The interviewer and decision-maker are now one and the same person;
  The purpose of the interview is clearly spelled out to the applicant at the outset;
  The account given by the applicant about the circumstances in which entry to the UK was achieved is thoroughly probed and warnings are given when the story is not believed; and
  Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) issues are considered in all cases to ensure that a negative section 55 decision would not result in a breach of Convention rights.

  The Government's appeals against the Collins judgement in the six test cases were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 18 March 2003. However, the judgment found in favour of the Secretary of State on all key points of law, including that section 55 is not incompatible with the ECHR in any respect. The judgment therefore gave renewed legal backing for the Government's policy.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied asylum seeking children were deported in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [109574]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available. Although statistics on the removal of failed asylum seekers include unaccompanied minors; they are not separately identified. The information would therefore only be available by examination of individual case-files; this would be at disproportionate cost.

  However, under current policy, unaccompanied children are not removed under Immigration Act powers unless we are satisfied that suitable arrangements have been made for their reception and care in the destination country.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children of asylum-seeking families are detained. [110066]

  Beverley Hughes
  Dungavel, Harmondsworth, Oakington and Tinsley House are the only Immigration Service Removal Centres (IRCs) that deal with family cases. A one-off exercise was carried out on 2 April 2003 to assess the number of children under the age of 18 detained in these IRCs, the results of which are contained in the table.
  523W

  Immigration Service Removal Centre

  Children under 18 years of age in detention at 2 April 2003

  Dungavel

  21

  Harmondsworth

  18

  Oakington

  14

  Tinsley

  3

  Total

  56

  Minors are detained only in two limited circumstances: first, as part of a family group whose detention is considered appropriate; second, when unaccompanied, while alternative care arrangements are made and normally just overnight.

  More detailed information on those in detention at 29 March 2003 is due to be published on 30 May on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/whatsnew1.html.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to keep track of the whereabouts of failed asylum seekers who cannot be deported and who no longer receive support from NASS. [110484]

  Beverley Hughes
  As part of the initial screening process asylum-seekers are required to provide proof of residence at a particular address. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) maintains databases containing the information supplied, which is also recorded in the individual Home Office file. All applicants, and their representatives, are told of their obligation to notify the Home Office of any subsequent change of address. For those subject to a reporting regime, their place of residence is verified during the reporting event.

  The Immigration Service has eight designated reporting centres to assist in managing reporting regimes and, in addition, a person may be required to report to a police station near their address. Alongside these measures systems are in place to track and monitor all failed asylum seekers.

  Community Punishment Orders
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding is available for community punishment orders in each probation service area; and if he will make a statement. [109593]

  Hilary Benn
  The budget for each probation area for 2003–04 is set out in the table.

  The budget given to each area is a general grant and is not hypothecated for community punishment orders nor any other activity.

  The National Probation Service (NPS) has been piloting an enhanced community punishment scheme. Plans are in place for this to be rolled out to all probation areas in 2003–04. The national budget settlement for 2003–04 included an additional £9 million to support the implementation of Enhanced Community Punishment (ECP).
  524W

  Probation areas showing main service budgets for 2003–04

  £000

  Avon and Somerset

  13,613

  Bedfordshire

  5,440

  Cambridgeshire

  5,760

  Cheshire

  10,393

  Cumbria

  5,290

  Derbyshire

  9,120

  Devon and Cornwall

  13,670

  Dorset

  5,620

  Durham

  7,460

  Essex

  13,381

  Gloucestershire

  5,080

  Hampshire

  15,560

  Hertfordshire

  7,797

  Humberside

  10,620

  Kent

  14,620

  Lancashire

  16,410

  Leicestershire

  9,350

  Lincolnshire

  6,200

  Norfolk

  7,139

  Northamptonshire

  5,820

  North Yorkshire

  6,603

  Nottinghamshire

  12,120

  Staffordshire

  9,610

  Suffolk

  6,031

  Surrey

  6,910

  Sussex

  11,546

  Teeside

  8,420

  Thames Valley

  16,915

  Warwickshire

  4,220

  West Mercia

  9,880

  Wiltshire

  5,293

  Greater Manchester

  33,980

  Merseyside

  20,250

  Northumbria

  19,969

  South Yorkshire

  16,956

  West Midlands

  35,050

  West Yorkshire

  27,280

  Greater London

  96,690

  Dyfed-Powys

  5,572

  Gwent

  7,723

  North Wales

  7,666

  South Wales

  16,990

  Total

  574,017

  DNA Profiles
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be affected each year by his policy to permit the retention of DNA information from people who are arrested arid then released without charge. [108555]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  It is currently estimated that in the region of 300,000 arrestees will be affected by this change in sampling policy. However, fewer than this will require DNA sampling, as some people will already have profiles on the database, and prolific offenders are likely to be arrested more than once in a year.

  Drugs
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many items of drug equipment were found in prisons in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [109575]

  Hilary Benn
  There were 438 reported finds of drug implements in the financial year 2001–02. The provisional figure for 2002–03 is 360 finds.

  Firearms Certificates
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people hold(a) a firearms certificate, (b) a shotgun certificate and (c) both of the above together; and if he will make a statement. [110037]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information in the form requested is not kept centrally. However, available statistics show that on 31 December 2001, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 119,560 firearm certificates on issue covering 301,000 firearms and 577,171 shot gun certificates covering 1,307,576 shot guns.

  This represents a decrease of five per cent. for firearm certificates and four per cent. for shot gun certificates compared with 31 December 2000.

  There is no record of how many people hold both firearm and shot gun certificates but many will do so.

  Hemsworth Crime
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of(a) violent crime, (b) burglary and (c) vandalism in the Hemsworth constituency were reported to the police in 2001–02; and how many investigations resulted in a conviction. [109904]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The requested details are not collected centrally. Details of some offences recorded by the police have been collected by police Basic Command Unit (BCU) since 1 April 1999. The table gives details of numbers of offences and detections for the Wakefield BCU. Details of criminal damage offences are not available at BCU level.

  Numbers of offences and detections—Wakefield BCU 2001–02

  Violent crime1:

  Offences

  3,029

  Offences detected

  2,235

  Burglary in a dwelling:

  Offences

  3,454

  Offences detected

  526

  1 Violent crime is comprised of the violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery offence groups.

  Details of convictions specifically relating to offences in the Wakefield BCU are not available.

  Immigration
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated from the study to estimate the size and characteristics of the population of people with irregular immigration status. [110483]

  Beverley Hughes
  Estimating the numbers entering Britain illegally is difficult because illegal migrants, by definition, put themselves outside of official statistics. Illegal migrants are motivated to ensure they remain hidden, and this is a challenge to conducting research.

  At present there is no defined method for estimating the size of the illegally resident population in the UK and therefore no official estimate is available.
  526W
  The Home Office has commissioned a review of methods used in other countries to estimate the size of their illegal populations. The research was commissioned in order to help define methods appropriate for the UK. On the basis of this information and the likely sources of UK information we will actively consider our next steps.

  The research is currently being finalised and the Home Office anticipate publishing the results, assuming the research is deemed to be of sufficient quality. Hard copies of research publications are placed in the Library. However, the research may be published as an online report, in which case it will be accessible and downloadable from the Home Office, Research Development and Statistics website.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on the number of people with irregular immigration status who have children born in the UK, and the status of those children. [110485]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is no information available on the numbers or status of children of irregular migrants in the UK.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog of correspondence from hon. Members is at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [109608]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate receive approximately 15,000 letters from Members of Parliament each year. Over 1,600 letters were cleared in a recent exercise to reduce correspondence backlogs. Of those still outstanding there are only a very small number with a target date before 1 April 2003.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees have(a) committed suicide and (b) been self-injured in each immigration removal centre in the UK in each of the last five years. [109509]

  Beverley Hughes
  There have been two apparent self-inflicted deaths in immigration removal centres in the last five years. Records of incidents of self-harm are not kept centrally and the requested information is not therefore available.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those who are detained under immigration rules have been held in more than one removal centre. [109511]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information on those in detention shows that at 28 December 2002, 1,145 people were detained solely under Immigration Act powers. The number of these who had been detained in more than one removal centre is not available and could be obtained only by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 29 March 2003 is due to be published at the end of May 2003 on the Ho me Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov uk/rds/immigration1.html

  Penal System
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has commissioned an inquiry into the operation and cost effectiveness of the prison and correctional system; and if he will make a statement. [109524]

  Hilary Benn
  A Review of Correctional Services was announced in July 2002 in the white paper "Justice for All".

  The first phase of the review has concentrated on the short term demands on the correctional services and was carried out by the Home Office. The second phase of the review is being led by Patrick Carter and will consider a strategy for correctional services over the Spending Review (SR) 2004 period to meet the Government's objectives of protecting the public, reducing crime and sustaining public confidence, in ways which are cost effective and financially sustainable.

  Police
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 591W, on police, what estimate he has made of net pensions expenditure as a proportion of police net expenditure in (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [109598]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Provision for net expenditure and for net pension expenditure is determined by police authorities. Estimates for future years are not available.

  Within the police funding formula a component for police pension costs currently amounts to 14.5 per cent. of the total provision. Allocation of the provision between police authorities is made on advice from the Government Actuary's Department.

  Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours of purposeful activity prisoners engaged in at(a) HMP Altcourse, (b) HMP Rye Hill and (c) HMP Wolds in 2001–02. [109522]

  Hilary Benn
  The average hours per week spent by prisoners in purposeful activity for each of the requested prisons in 2001–02, is shown in the following table.

  Establishment

  Average purposeful hours per prisoner per week

  Altcourse

  34.3

  Rye Hill

  29.4

  Wolds

  28.3

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 585W, on drugs in prisons, how many prisoners underwent detoxification in the last year; what medication is used to aid detoxification; what guidance is made available to local prisons in relation to the detoxification of prisoners; and if he will place a copy of the guidance in the Library. [109578]
  528W
  Hilary Benn
  Prison Service establishments reported that 41,916 drug and alcohol detoxifications were carried out between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002.

  Prison Service Order 3550, issued on 20 December 2000, introduced a new Prison Service Standard for Clinical Services for Substance Misusers. This concerns the effective clinical management of the substance misuse treatment service provided by staff working in prisons. It is designed to ensure that good quality clinical substance misuse services are available in all local prisons and remand centres to a level that is at least comparable with those in the community.

  The standard requires, among other things, all prisons which receive prisoners from court to have detoxification guidelines in place for at least one of Methadone, Lofexidine, and Dihydrocodeine. It also stipulates that, as new evidence becomes available on the chemical management of detoxification or abstinence, establishments should develop further treatment guidelines which are in line with those available in the national health service (NHS).

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith) has already agreed to place a copy of the standard in the Library in response to a request from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden).

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) convicted and (b) unconvicted immigration detainees are being held in prisons. [109587]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available data on the number of persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers relate to 28 December 2002. As at that date 215 people were recorded as being detained in Prison Service establishments.

  The routine use of Prison Service accommodation for immigration detainees ended at the beginning of 2002, but it remains necessary to hold small numbers of detainees in prison for reasons of control and security. The figure of 215 may include individuals who are held pending deportation after completion of custodial sentences.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 29 March 2003 is due to be published at the end of May on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate web-site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time equivalent teachers are employed in prisons in England and Wales. [109590]

  Hilary Benn
  There are 691 full-time teachers employed by education contractors to work in prisons. Learning opportunities for prisoners are also provided by a range of other staff including part-time teachers employed by the contractor, Instructional Officers, Prison Officer Instructors and other prison staff.
  529W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons in England and Wales in the last two years additional accommodation has been built in response to the rising prison population; and what proportion of the additional places were in ready to use units. [109595]

  Additional accommodation places opened in Prison Service establishments between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2003

  Houseblocks

  Ready to use units (RTUs)

  Modular temporary units (MTUs)

  Establishment

  Number of houseblocks

  Number of places

  Number of RTUs

  Number of places

  Number of MTUs

  Number of places

  Lindholme

  1

  120

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hull

  2

  358

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Risley

  1

  180

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ashwell

  —

  —

  1

  40

  —

  —

  Blundeston

  —

  —

  1

  40

  —

  —

  Deerbolt

  —

  —

  1

  40

  —

  —

  Erlestoke

  —

  —

  1

  40

  —

  —

  Guys Marsh

  —

  —

  1

  40

  —

  —

  Highpoint (North)

  —

  —

  2

  80

  —

  —

  Morton Hall

  —

  —

  4

  160

  —

  —

  Ranby

  —

  —

  2

  80

  —

  —

  Whatton

  —

  —

  1

  40

  —

  —

  Highpoint (South)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  80

  Hollesley Bay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  80

  Leyhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  80

  Moorland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  80

  North Sea Camp

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  80

  Prescoed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  40

  Spring Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  40

  Standford Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  80

  Wayland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  40

  Wealstun

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  80

  Whatton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  40

  Total

  4

  658

  14

  560

  18

  720

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prisons constructed under the private finance initiatives and their public sector comparators. [109597]

  Hilary Benn
  The prisons designed, constructed, managed and financed under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) are: Altcourse, Ashfield, Dovegate, Forest Bank, Lowdham Grange, Parc and Rye Hill. In addition, the contracts for two new PFI prisons at Ashford, Middlesex and at Peterborough have been signed and construction work is under way.

  In all cases, there was no up-to-date publicly procured prison and the public service comparator was therefore estimated, being derived from past experience in terms of public sector capital expenditure in constructing and refurbishing a prison and to cover the cost of operating prison. Estimates took account of the different requirements of each prison. The public sector comparators are shown in the following table.

  £ million

  Prison

  Public sector comparator

  Altcourse

  249.5

  Ashfield

  141

  Ashford

  259

  Dovegate

  292

  Forest Bank

  234.5

  Lowdham Grange

  157

  530W
  Hilary Benn
  The following table shows the number of additional accommodation places opened at Prison Service establishments in England and Wales between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2003. Of the 1,938 places opened, 29 per cent. or 560 places) were in ready to use units.

  Prison

  Public sector comparator

  Parc

  319

  Peterborough

  335

  Rye Hill

  209

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons do not have visitor centres; how many do; and, of these, how many are staffed by volunteers. [110082]

  Hilary Benn
  Of the 138 Prison Service establishments, it is estimated that 90 have visitors' centres, of which around 85 per cent. are staffed by a mix of paid employees and volunteers. A further four centres are in planning.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison visitor centres are financed by(a) the prison from its own funds and (b) the Prison Service. [110083]

  Hilary Benn
  Responsibility for the provision of grants to support prison visitors' centres was devolved to prison Governors on 1 April 1994. It is a matter for individual Governors to decide the level of funding to be allocated to their visitors' centre, as they are best placed to assess the facilities required locally. Information on funding to centres by individual prisons is not collated centrally.
  531W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the prison visitor centre to all prison establishments; and if he will provide additional funding. [110084]

  Hilary Benn
  There are a growing number of visitors' centres. We acknowledge their potential in assisting the delivery of our aims and aim to provide such a centre at each prison. However, the considerable financial and other resources needed to run visitors' centres effectively, and the many competing priorities within the Prison Service, have prevented some establishments from making as much progress a s we would like. All newly-built and contracted-out establishments are required to have a visitors' centre under the terms of their contract.

  We continue to work closely with the voluntary/community sector in enhancing and developing visitors' centres and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their efforts.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to put in place a national strategy for elderly prisoners. [110344]

  Hilary Benn
  There are no plans to put in place a separate national strategy for elderly prisoners that specifies regime requirements. The Prison Service aims to assess individual prisoner's needs through sentence planning. This takes account of the requirement for appropriate, accommodation, health care, regimes and resettlement support for all prisoners.

  Public Service Agreement
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the process of negotiation is between his Department and local police forces in the setting of local policing targets in relation to Home Office Public Service Agreement 1. [109589]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Police Reform Act 2002 requires all police authorities to prepare and publish three-year strategic plans which are consistent with the national policing plan in force at that time. All police authorities have now submitted their strategic plans (exceptionally covering only two years, 2003–05, to bring them into line with crime and disorder reduction partnership strategies). Evaluation of these plans for consistency with the national policing plan is underway and particular attention is being given to the Public Service Agreement 1 (PSA) targets.

  Scott Veach and Darren Franey
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the letter to him from the Liverpool coroner about the death of Scott Veach and Darren Franey. [109385]

  Hilary Benn
  Andre J. A. Rebello, Her Majesty's Coroner for the City of Liverpool, sent a letter to the Home Secretary on 25 March pursuant to Rule 43 of the Coroners' Rules, 1984.
  532W
  I have written to Dr. Rebello informing him that I share his concerns that the arrangements for policing the Mersey Tunnels should be safe and effective.

  The Home Office has asked for the views of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police and the Chief Executive of Mersey Travel on the issues raised in this investigation and how the policing of Mersey Tunnel should be carried out in future. Home Office and Department for Transport officials will then be taking forward work with the responsible organisations to address the issues.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his oral answer of 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 10, on terrorism, for what reasons his Department's Press Office told journalists in April that Lord Falconer had not taken over from the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) the responsibility for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear co-ordination within his Department. [110798]

  Mr. Blunkett
  There is no record of my Department's Press Office telling any journalist that my noble Friend Lord Falconer had not taken over from my right hon. Friend for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) the responsibility for CBRN co-ordination within the Home Office.

  Had the Home Office Press Office been asked the question posed by the hon. Member on Monday, they would have replied that I have oversight of all issues related to terrorism and security, including CBRN, and that Lord Falconer has responsibility for CBRN coordination working directly to me.

  Travellers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to revise its guidance to forces on managing travellers. [109193]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government published a Consultation Paper on Managing Unauthorised Camping Operational Guidance on 27 March. Once the consultation process has been completed and final guidance published, I understand from Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that they will revise their operational guidance to forces.

  Visa Applications
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it is taking the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to process(a) straightforward and (b) non-straightforward further leave to remain visa applications at the latest date for which figures are available. [109506]

  Beverley Hughes
  We normally aim to screen all postal applications within three weeks and decide those that are straightforward at that point. Because of the high number of applications in the latter part of 2002,
  533W
  this increased to 10 weeks on average at the end of last year and the earlier part of this one. As a result of measures to improve this situation, the processing time for straightforward applications has reduced to six weeks on average and continued progress is being
  534W
  made towards our three-week target. Some non-straightforward cases are currently taking up to 12 months to decide. Measures are also being taken to reduce the turnaround time for applications of this sort.

TRANSPORT

  Board of Transport Accident Investigators
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  I have recently announced the appointment of the Chief Inspector designate of Rail Accidents, and we are now setting up a Board of Transport Accident Investigators. This will comprise the Chief Inspectors of the Air and Marine Accident Investigation Branches together with the Chief Inspector designate of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB). The Board will initially support the Chief Inspector designate in her establishment of the RAIB and in the longer term will seek to identify areas where the accident investigation branches can co-operate and adopt best practice.

  London Regional Transport Board
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  In my written statement of 4 February,Official Report, Col 10WS, I announced that the Government, Transport for London (TfL) and the London Mayor had agreed to work together to secure a speedy and orderly transfer of the Underground to TfL.

  It remains my intention for the transfer to be completed as soon as possible. In the interim, I have decided to appoint two non-executive members to the London Regional Transport Board, Paul Godier, Managing Director of London Underground Limited (LUL), and Martin Callaghan, PPP Director of LUL, so that it can operate at full strength in carrying out its remaining functions, including the transfer of the Underground to TfL, in this final period. Both already attend LRT Boards, but as non-members have hitherto been unable to contribute to its quorum.

  The appointments took effect on 24 April 2003. Neither member will receive any additional remuneration.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Control
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The Government are firmly committed to maintaining effective immigration controls while at the same time ensuring that genuine passengers are able to pass through our ports with the least possible inconvenience.

  The number of Algerian nationals arriving at UK airports who are found to be inadmissible is unacceptably high. Although Algerian nationals must obtain a visa to enter the UK they may, in common with other nationalities, transit this country for up to 24 hours without a visa. However, this is a concession open to abuse by those who are intent on circumventing our immigration
  20WS
  controls. A significant number of Algerian nationals who do not qualify for leave to enter or remain in the UK go on to make unfounded asylum claims, some 1,060 in 2002. Therefore from 00.01 hours on Friday 2 May all Algerian nationals wishing to transit the UK will require a direct airside transit visa to do so.

  To avoid undue hardship for those who had already made their travel plans, we have agreed to operate a grace period. Until 23.59 hours on 6 May any transit passenger who brought their ticket on or before 1 May will not be refused transit solely on the basis of not holding a valid transit visa. Also, any person on the return leg of a journey they commenced before 1 May and who passed through the UK on the outward leg of their journey will be allowed to transit the UK without a visa.

DEFENCE

  Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Her Majesty's Forces) (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  In my capacity as Minster for Veterans I am pleased to announce that on 14 April 2003 the Department for Work and Pensions laid before the House the Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Her Majesty's Forces) (Amendment) Regulations 2003. The regulations provide that people discharged from the armed forces may in future count days of absence from duty on health grounds while in service towards the higher rates of incapacity benefit.

  For many years there have been special pay arrangements in place for members of the armed forces which recognise their unique position. Veterans with continuing health problems are able to make a claim for incapacity benefit immediately on discharge. However, until now, they were required to be in receipt of incapacity benefit for 28 weeks before qualifying for the higher rates. The new regulations, which take effect from 5 May, bring ex-members of the forces into line with civilian claimants who have been in receipt of statutory sick pay.

  I am grateful to DWP Ministers for making this change, which serves as an illustration of the power of the veterans initiative launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with the aim of joining up the Government's response to veterans' concerns. I would also like to pay tribute to ex-service organisations such as South Atlantic Medal Association (82), who first brought this matter to my attention, for the valuable work they do in the interests of ex-servicemen and women and their dependants.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Council
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The forthcoming business is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  MAY

  2–4

  Cruise from Rhodes to Kastellorizo

  Gymnich (Informal Foreign Ministers)

  21WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  3–4

  Athens

  Informal Environment (Ministerial Informal)

  5–6

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  10–13

  Corfu

  Agriculture (Ministerial Informal)

  12–13

  Brussels

  Competitiveness

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  15–16

  Brussels

  EU—ACP Ministerial

  16–17

  Halkidiki

  Informal Regional Policy (Ministerial)

  16–18

  Cruise off Greece

  Informal Transport & Merchant Marine (Ministerial)

  Brussels

  EU—W. Balkans (Zagreb Process)

  19

  Brussels

  Competitiveness Council

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (+ Defence)

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  Thessaloniki

  Informal Culture (Ministerial)

  26–27

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  26–27

  Crete

  EUROMED Conference (Mid Term Ministerial)

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  28

  Brussels

  Economic & Financial Affairs Committee

  30–31

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  St. Petersburg

  EU—Russia Summit

  JUNE

  2

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP

  5–6

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  5–6

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  5–6

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council

  2–3

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  Rhodes

  Public Administration (Ministerial Informal)

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  11–12

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  2–3

  Alexandroupolis

  Development Co-operation (Ministerial Informal)

  12–13

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  13

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations

  20

  Halkidiki

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  Thessaloniki

  Zagreb II Summit

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  JULY

  2–3

  Rome

  Research (Ministerial Informal)

  4–5

  Naples

  Transport Infrastructure (Ministerial Informal)

  22WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  10

  Palermo Varese

  Trade (Ministerial Informal) Informal Council/ Troika

  11–12

  Varese

  Employment & Social Policy (Informal Council)

  15–16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  17–18

  Treviso

  EU Employment Committee (Informal)

  18–20

  Montecatini

  Energy & Environment (Ministerial Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  24–25

  Milan

  European Conference on Discrimination

  25–26

  Rome

  Competitiveness (Informal Ministerial)

  25–26

  Verona

  Education (+ Research?) (Ministerial Informal)

  AUGUST

  No Meetings, Planned

  SEPTEMBER

  3–4

  Viterbo

  Telecommunications (Ministerial Informal)

  5–6

  Riva del Garda

  Gymnich (Informal Foreign Affairs)

  7–9

  Taormina

  Agriculture (Informal Council)

  12–13

  Stresa

  ECOFIN (Informal Council)

  19–20

  Rome

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Competition (Internal Market, Industry & Research)

  26–27

  Erice

  Community Regional Cohesion Policy (Ministerial Informal)

  29–30

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  29–30

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  OCTOBER

  2–3

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs

  3–4

  Rome

  Defense (Ministerial Informal)

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  9–10

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  13–14

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  13–14

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  16–17

  Brussels

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  20–21

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  27

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  NOVEMBER

  4

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  6

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council—to be confirmed)

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  2.4–25

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  2.4–25

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Railways and Transport Safety Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The measures that the Bill introduces will play an important part in improving the safety of transport in this country. The Bill will set up a new branch to investigate accidents on the railways; introduce new alcohol offences in relation to marine and aviation activities; and create an independent police authority for the British Transport Police. It will also restructure the body responsible for regulating the railways. I shall deal with each of these matters, as well as touching on the other issues that the Bill covers.
Part 1 of the Bill establishes a rail accident investigation branch. That is in direct response to the recommendations made by Lord Cullen in his report on the Ladbroke Grove rail crash.
In the event of a railway accident, it is important that we find out as quickly as possible what caused the accident so that any safety measures and remedial action can be taken as soon as possible. At the moment there are, of course, bodies responsible for investigating accidents, but the Government agree with Lord Cullen that things can be improved. Currently, after a rail accident, the police are responsible for investigating any general criminal acts. At the same time, Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate, which is part of the Health and Safety Executive, investigates the cause of the accident. Importantly, however, the HSE will also be responsible for prosecuting any breaches of health and safety legislation.
There is no body with responsibility solely for finding out what went wrong without attributing blame so that any lessons from an accident can be learnt as quickly as possible. That is what the rail accident investigation branch will do. As Clause 4 makes clear, the branch's aims will be, first, to improve the safety of the railways; and, secondly, to prevent railway accidents and railway incidents.
The rail branch will play a similar role to that played by the Air and Marine Accident Investigation Branches. The system works well there. In both cases, they have a long history—since 1922 in the case of the air branch—of getting to the bottom of what happened in an accident, and doing so far more quickly than has been the case on the railways. The proposal was met with general approval on both sides of another place and I hope that it will receive a similar response in this House.
800
I should now like to turn to the other parts of the Bill which I hope can be dealt with in relatively short order. Part 2 would bring the railways into line with other regulated industries by providing that the regulatory body is headed by a board rather than by an individual. It will be called the office of rail regulation. That change was recommended by the Better Regulation Task Force. The Government agree that moving to a board is sensible best practice. It will ensure a greater range of expertise at the top of the organisation, as well as enhanced continuity in decision-making. The functions and duties are unchanged from those of the current regulator.
Part 3 will create an independent police authority for the British Transport Police. At present, the transport police are accountable to a committee appointed by the Strategic Rail Authority. That fulfils many of the functions of a police authority, but it would be better for it to be replaced by an independent police authority that is properly accountable.for its actions. The Bill makes that provision. In addition, Clause 30 will put the transport police's jurisdiction over the railways on a wholly statutory footing.
Parts 4 and 5 deal with alcohol and drug offences in relation to marine and aviation activities. In particular, these parts of the Bill will introduce blood alcohol concentration limits for mariners and aviators. When breath tests for drivers were first introduced on the roads, in 1967, it is reckoned that fatalities were reduced by about 800 a year. The Government believe that it is now time to introduce a similar approach to the marine and aviation sectors.
Part 4 implements the recommendations made by Lord Justice Clarke in his review of safety on the Thames after the "Marchioness" disaster. The Bill will make it an offence for any mariner to operate while impaired by alcohol or drugs, and bring in alcohol testing and an alcohol limit of 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood—the same as on the roads. That limit will also apply to off-duty professional mariners, if they would be called upon to evacuate passengers in the event of an emergency.
Non-professional mariners will also be subject to the limits, but with one difference. The alcohol provisions that apply to professional mariners do so no matter what kind of vessel they may be on board. However, Clause 79 would allow the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to except certain types of vessels in the case of the recreational mariner. The Government will consult on these regulations before introducing them, as it is important to get this right. But the Government intend to apply a proportionate approach that reflects the safety risks. As things stand, we are minded to except, for example, non-professional mariners on rowing boats, sailing dinghies and narrowboats. Larger, high-powered craft, including jet-skis, which pose a greater level of danger, would be included.
Part 5 will introduce similar offences for aviation activities. Here again the Government have sought to take a proportionate approach. Aircrew and air traffic controllers will be subject to a blood alcohol limit of

801
20 milligrammes, in recognition of the quicker reactions and level of concentration required by such people. Other aviation workers will be subject to an 80 milligramme limit, as on the roads.
Part 6 includes a number of miscellaneous measures, covering roads, sea and rail, including the Tube.
I wish to highlight two areas. Clause 104 enables the Health and Safety Executive to levy some of the costs of its rail-related activities on the rail industry. This levy will replace the Health and Safety Executive's current practice of charging on the basis of an hourly charging system. It will be much less bureaucratic and therefore cheaper to administer for both the Health and Safety Executive and the rail industry. The levy will also allow the industry to plan ahead as it will know up-front how much it will have to pay.
Detailed consultation will take place before any levy is introduced, but the current policy intention is that the Health and Safety Executive should seek to recover the same proportion of costs through the levy as it does from the existing charging regime—that is, about 55 per cent of the costs of Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate's regulatory activities.
Clauses 111 and 112 amend the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Among other things, Clause Ill deals with certain parts of the GLA Act that would, as they stand, restrict the operation of some provisions of the London Underground public/private partnership contracts when they are transferred to Transport for London. In particular, it will ensure that the guarantees provided by the contracts continue to hold after transfer. It was never the intention of the GLA Act to prevent such guarantees from operating.
Clause 112 also concerns the PPP contracts. It will ensure that the PPP arbiter has the right to receive information from the regulators of regulated industries. At present, the GLA Act ensures that the arbiter can share the information that he possesses but does not give him any reciprocal rights.
The Bill is important. It will make significant changes, improving safety on the railways and at sea and in the air. I hope that its passage through the House will be relatively uncontroversial, as it was in another place. No doubt there will be points of detail which can be dealt with, but I hope that the whole House will support it. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
11.14 a.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear explanation of the Bill and for writing to me giving further details about it. The Bill follows the progress made by the previous Conservative government that introduced a number of transport safety Bills—the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and the Transport and Works Act 1992.
Perhaps I may begin by looking at the issue of rail safety. Travelling by rail is one of the safest means of transport. Evidence suggests that travel on the
802
railways is six times safer than by car. Sadly, due to a number of serious accidents on the railways, public confidence was undermined and a number of weaknesses in safety regulations became apparent.
The Cullen report made a number of recommendations following the dreadful Ladbroke Grove train crash. Can the Minister tell the House how many of its 74 recommendations have been introduced and how many have not yet been acted on or will not be brought into force by the Bill? Are there any left to be dealt with?
As the Minister said, the Bill will establish the rail accident investigation branch. Its primary duty will be to investigate accidents and to share safety lessons so as to prevent further accidents. It will report to the Secretary of State. But it will have no prosecution function. Can the Minister explain whether the Health and Safety Executive, which is responsible for prosecutions in regard to safety issues, will also be responsible for prosecutions in regard to accidents—or will that be the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service or any other body?
We are concerned about the overlapping relationships between the rail accident investigation branch and the Health and Safety Executive, which will remain the rail safety regulator. The Railway Inspectorate, which comes under the Health and Safety Executive, will investigate and enforce safety. It will have prosecution powers but, as I understand it, will not have the lead responsibility for accident investigation. As proposed, that will remain with the rail accident investigation branch.
In addition, there is the Rail Safety and Standards Board, which sets safety and operating standards and practices for the industry. We will want an assurance from the Minister that these bodies will work together so as to neither unnecessarily overlap each other nor allow gaps to appear between them.
We must also not forget the British Transport Police, who act on behalf of the coroner to establish the causes of deaths on the railways and who retain responsibility for the investigation of serious offences committed on the railways.
Floating above that is the Strategic Rail Authority, which is responsible for strategic direction, and the Office of the Rail Regulator which, although it is the economic regulator for the railways, must also take account of safety. Finally, at the top of this rather large and complex tree, we have the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament—although the previous incumbent found that notion particularly difficult to understand and sometimes hard to accept. The Minister will have to show how these different bodies, with their various responsibilities, will work together, and how the department and Parliament will be able to monitor progress and how the system works.
Rail travel in this country is safe. It is not as safe as we would like, but it is getting safer every year. Statistics show that one is more likely to be involved in an accident on a journey to a railway station than on

803
any subsequent stage of one's journey. It is an important area and we shall probe the Government's intentions during the Committee stage.
We welcome the provisions relating to the British Transport Police. However, can the Minister explain why the opportunity presented by the Bill to formalise the extended jurisdiction temporarily granted to the British Transport Police under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is not being taken. That Act has to be renewed annually by Parliament. It is a process which we all hope that at a point in the future will not be necessary. But, if and when that day dawns, the British Transport Police will lose this important power. Surely the Bill presents an obvious opportunity for it to be retained. In the past, the British Transport Police have had difficulties in the vicinity of railways because they have not had the powers necessary to deal with offences. This is an important issue. I am surprised that the power is not included in the Bill and I look forward to the Minister's explanation on that point.
We welcome the creation of an independent police authority for the British Transport Police and the transfer of responsibility for the force from the SRA to the new police authority. But we are concerned about possible gaps. For example, should an offence be committed on a train en route to an airport but the culprit "legs it" from the station into the airport, the British Transport Police have no powers to follow or arrest the culprit. Will the Minister tell us how the proposed measure will work as more and more airports in this country become connected to rail links? I believe that the powers of the British Transport Police should be extended so that their jurisdiction covers the vicinity of the rail network.
Having arrived at the airport from the train as it were, let me turn to the provisions concerning aviation. The Government instituted the Wheeler report which made a number of recommendations. How many of those have been implemented? Would not the Bill have been an ideal opportunity to simplify the Aviation Security Act 1982, as recommended by the Wheeler report? What progress has been made in clarifying the powers of search on exit from cargo areas at airports? If progress has been made, why are the changes required not in the Bill? Or are they in the Bill and I have simply not found them? That is perfectly possible. Will the Minister comment on that?
The Bill introduces statutory alcohol limits and the creation of an alcohol-testing regime for aircrew, air traffic controllers and aircraft maintenance engineers. I understand that that includes drug testing. Will the Minister give a clear definition of what constitutes standby duty? That is important for those working in the industry. Am I correct in understanding that the Bill does not give the police powers to breathalyse a pilot involved in an accident? The Minister said that that regime was to be extended to maritime personnel. However, it appears from Clause 92 that different limits will be imposed. Would it not be better if there was one clear and specific limit for all those involved in safety critical work? Will the Minister comment on that?
804
The Minister said that non-professional mariners would be covered. Who will be responsible for breathalysing someone sailing, for example, in the Solent? Will it be the police? Do they have enough boats to do that? Or will it be the coastguard? Does the coastguard have the authority to carry out that task? If it is to be the police, will they be properly resourced? What will be the cost of that? Do the Government have any estimates? The Minister said that the Government would consult on the regulations to except certain types of vessels in the case of the recreational mariner. It appears that people on jet-skis may be subject to the measure but people in rowing boats may not. How will the measure work? We need to be given a clearer explanation of that.
Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 it is open to individual harbour authorities to take powers to prescribe a level of intoxication, but, as I understand it, only the Port of London Authority has taken powers to carry out breath tests. I also understand that there are doubts about whether magistrates would back up the authority in the event of action being taken and that the evidence of a positive test cannot be used directly by the authority in bringing a prosecution. Is that correct? A further anomaly is that while air traffic controllers will be subject to alcohol limits, harbour masters—they do a critical job in the Channel ports—will not. Why are they left out?
The most difficult and most popular but dangerous form of travel in this country is car travel. That is something that nearly all of us do almost every day. For many people car travel is essential and it is the most used form of travel but it has not received the attention in the Bill that it deserves.
The Government introduced two new clauses in the Bill in another place. The first extends the wearing of seat belts to goods vehicles. If my noble friend Lord Attlee were here, he would certainly have something to say about that issue. I very much hope that he will be back in time for Committee stage to demonstrate his well-known expertise in this area. Following an amendment moved by the Conservative Party in Committee in another place, the Government introduced their own similar amendment to impose a duty on highway authorities to keep roads clear of snow and ice which might endanger vehicles and pedestrians. We welcome the Government's acceptance of the Conservative proposal.
However, the Government resisted the important proposal that the Secretary of State should prepare and lay before Parliament an annual report on the incidence and causes of major road traffic accidents in each 12-month period. We shall want to return to that issue in Committee. It is an opportunity to make a real contribution to road safety by allowing the causes of accidents to be set out and, if possible, acted upon.
Finally, as the Minister said, the Bill makes provision for the transfer of contracts from London Regional Transport to Transport for London and for any subsequent transfer. In addition, it deals with a PPP agreement for London Underground. We are concerned about those provisions and, for example, the consequence of one of the main partners of a PPP

805
going bankrupt. We shall be looking at those issues in detail in Committee as well as the many other issues that will be raised today, in particular the burden of costs on the industry. We welcome the Bill. I look forward to the next stage.
11.25 a.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courtesy in writing to noble Lords before this stage of the Bill. We welcome the part of the Bill that sets up the rail accident investigation branch although we question the inclusion of the words "wherever relevant" in Clause 4 which concerns general aims.
However, we have to judge the measure against the fact that since the Labour Party came to power 17,000 people have died in road accidents while fewer than 150 have been killed on the railways. We look for an equal concern in dealing with both those scourges, not an hysterical reaction to the former while ignoring or trivialising the latter. We note that we still await a road safety Bill. That has been long promised but has not been delivered.
We seek an assurance with regard to the absolute independence of the rail accident investigation branch and that it will be entirely free of the influence of the Strategic Rail Authority, the rail regulator or anyone else. Will the Minister give that assurance?
We believe that, with the setting up of the rail accident investigation branch, the existing Health and Safety Inspectorate and the Rail Safety and Standards Board the industry has quite enough bodies overseeing safety. We are sure that the Government—at Question Time yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, reiterated the Government's zeal to cut red tape—will try to reduce the bureaucracy involved in safety regulation.
The Rail Regulator should henceforth confine himself to matters of economic regulation and access rights and should not be involved in safety matters. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. Of course, we welcome the setting up of the rail regulatory board rather than having a single person as regulator.
We believe that the arrangements for charging for the services of the Health and Safety Inspectorate are unreasonable and arbitrary. Every organisation, even the village school with one teacher, has to furnish an exacting budget. Further, the Health and Safety Executive will lose responsibility for the somewhat arbitrary cost impact of accidents which are, of course, unpredictable in their nature.
We want to see a very strict work programme, including inspections. We see no particular reason why the industry should be levied, especially as its much larger competitor, the road industry, is not levied. No doubt the costs are factored into the franchising equation somehow. So in the end, one way or another, taxpayers meet those costs. They meet them either in higher franchise premia or in the franchise itself costing more money.
806
I know that the Government have set great store by the activities of the Health and Safety Executive. Can the Minister tell us what the railway part of the organisation cost over the past year, what key results were achieved for the money, and whether that cost really represented an improvement on the activities of the former Railway Inspectorate, judged on a value for money basis or cost per life saved? How does that figure compare with those which apply to the roads?
I turn now to the issue of the British Transport Police. Under the new Chief Constable, this is a much improved force. We want to see that improvement sustained and, as the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, remarked, we are not satisfied with the definition of jurisdiction as it stands. Despite the arguments advanced by Mr Spellar in another place, we want to see the words,
"in the vicinity of railway premises",
added to the Bill. As the noble Viscount also pointed out, we do not want to have to rely on the possible extension of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. We also want this facility to be further extended so that the jurisdiction may be extended at the request of a civil police force when circumstances make that desirable. We do not see the purpose of setting a form of boundary over which an otherwise fully-trained uniformed constable should not cross. These are modest requests, but in the main they would assist with the Government's Street Crime Initiative and deal with what is broadly described as antisocial behaviour.
We are concerned about the constitution of the proposed British Transport Police authority. While we fully support the concept of such an authority, we believe that Transport for London, which meets so much of the cost of the British Transport Police, should be guaranteed one or even two places on the authority. We question the proposed composition of the authority, in particular its freedom to choose its own chairman rather than such a person being appointed by the Minister.
One way or the other, all police forces are predominantly financed by central funds, but the 43 civilian police forces in the country are able to select from among their midst a chairman who most members feel adequately and independently represents them. Any comparisons that the Government may seek to make with the MoD police are invalid and the much better option, having settled the issue with regard to the composition of the authority, is to leave authority members to choose their own chairman on the basis of his or her competence.
We also want the British Transport Police to be enabled to employ community support officers, as are other forces, and to enjoy any rights which may be afforded to other police authorities to pay or offer an allowance to special constables.
My final point concerns Clause 111, covering the transfer in London of responsibility for the railways from London Regional Transport to Transport for London. Although we on these Benches have not supported the public/private partnership, we accept

807
the Government's right to implement it. Although I may be wrong, I understand that the final act is the passage of this clause in the Bill. As recent events on the London Underground Central Line demonstrated, it is now urgent that the transfer takes place. I should like the Minister to say whether, as an interim measure, a letter of comfort could be issued to those concerned with the PPP so that action can he taken straightaway on the assumption that this Bill will eventually become law.
My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market will express some of our concerns about roads and road transport when she winds up the debate, while my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie will address aviation and shipping matters when he intervenes later in the debate. We look forward to the Committee stage and the initial and, possibly, more considered response of the Minister.
11.35 a.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I welcome this important Bill and wish it well. I have no relevant commercial interests to declare, but I have a long acquaintance with the British Transport Police, having worked with the force during my time at the British Railways Board, and while I served on various committees concerned with tackling hooliganism and crowd violence in football. When I speak about Part 3 of the Bill, I shall do so as someone who knows the force well.
I shall also say a few words about some of the road safety issues touched on in Part 6 of the Bill. My unremunerated interest here is as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
First, I shall deal with Parts 1 and 2. I, too, welcome the establishment of the rail accident investigation branch, which implements the recommendations of Lord Cullen's inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove accident of October 1999. I see the RAIB as a further step towards reversing the fragmentation of the railways, which was by far the worst consequence of privatisation. There was much that was wrong and frustrating about the former publicly-owned industry, but one of its great strengths—and the abiding legacy of Sir Robert Reid, the second chairman of the BRB, with whom I had the privilege of working—was a unified command structure with clearly defined levels of responsibility. That was broken up by privatisation and replaced, I fear, by what could be called a "blame culture", in which things that went wrong always seemed to be the fault of someone else. That was particularly evident with the accidents at Hatfield and Potters Bar, which followed Ladbroke Grove.
So the RAIB makes good sense and I commend the Government on bringing forward these proposals. I also welcome the late addition to the Bill, made in another place on 31st March, to require the RAIB to publish an annual report on railway safety.
I am also happy with the proposals in Part 2 to establish the office of rail regulation. I accept the logic of the Government's argument that this will bring railways regulation into line with that of other
808
industries, and I am pleased that they have resisted the temptation to absorb the regulator into the Strategic Rail Authority. This is, I think, the moment to pay tribute to the current rail regulator, Tom Winsor, only the second—and now, presumably, the last—holder of the post. His term of office has not been free of controversy, but I believe that passengers and freight users have reason to be grateful for his efforts on their behalf, particularly during his battles with Railtrack, an organisation whose public relations were so abysmal that it even managed to make the British Railways Board appear popular in retrospect, and by comparison.
I turn now to Part 3 and the proposals relating to the British Transport Police. The history of the force can be traced right back to 1825, to the start of the railways in Britain and the beginning of modern policing. During the early years, railway company police officer; were sworn in as county constables as well, as each had specific responsibility for the surrounding area. As the railway network spread across the country in 19th century Britain, and criminals discovered that offences could be committed on the move with rapid means of escape—rather in the way that the modern motorway network has created similar opportuni ties—the need for a dedicated mobile police force, able to cross county boundaries, became evident.
The network nature of the railway system also means that incidents affecting its operation in one location can reverberate down the system, creating knock-on effects for thousands of people many miles away. That is why the railways have special policing needs and why a national police force for the railways has always been a cost-effective solution. It is also why the Government are right to reject the suggestion that has been around over the past 12 months to hive off policing on the London Underground and to hand over part of the BTP's activities to the Metropolitan Police. While that might superficially have given the Home Secretary the opportunity to claim an increase in the number of police officers in London, it is far more important to maintain an integrated transport police force covering the mainline as well as the underground railways.
As my noble friend said, the proposals in the Bill follow closely those in the consultation paper published in October 2001 by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions entitled Modernising the British Transport Police. The establishment of a new police authority is a helpful step forward and puts the BTP on the same sort of constitutional footing as Home Office forces. Although I have heard no complaint about the present police committee, it is not sensible for a commercial agreement with the constituent parts of a now diverse railway industry to be the basis of BTP authority.
It is also a good idea to put BTP pay and conditions within a regulatory framework governed by the Secretary of State. That will further reinforce the comparability with Home Office forces and help the modernisation process. I have one question on the issue for my noble friend; it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, a moment ago. Will the

809
Government be prepared to give the chief constable of the BTP the power to appoint community support officers, in the way that Home Office police chiefs can under the provisions of the Police Reform Act? The BTP tell me that CSOs would be of great assistance to them, and such a power would seem consistent with the principles underlying the Bill and the new status proposed for the force.
The other issue to which we must return in Committee is that of the BTP's jurisdiction. I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said on the subject. The House will recall that the Government included in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 a provision to extend the transport police's jurisdiction beyond the immediate boundaries of the railway. Parliament was persuaded—a little reluctantly, but rightly in my view—that it was absurd and dangerous for Home Office forces not to be able to call on BTP officers to assist in situations such as the riots in Bradford in July 2001, or to pursue miscreants beyond railway premises.
The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act has a sunset clause, however, and is subject to a Privy Council review later this year. It is possible that its provisions will not be renewed. If that were to happen, the BTP would have to rely on the Bill for the definition of its jurisdiction. The Bill repeals Section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, which uses the words "in the vicinity of" in relation to BTP jurisdiction on railway premises. Those words are not repeated in the Bill, so the force could finish up with less jurisdiction than it had prior to the passing of the emergency legislation. I hope very much therefore that the Government will accept an amendment—I suspect that it will be an all-party amendment—that puts the words "in the vicinity of" into the Bill.
Finally, and briefly, I turn to one or two of the miscellaneous provisions in Part 6. I welcome the proposals for removing the exemption for delivery drivers from wearing seatbelts in Clause 107, and the new requirements in Clause 108 for highway authorities to deal with snow and ice on their roads. But what a pity it is that the opportunity has not been taken in the Bill to outlaw the use of mobile phones by people when driving vehicles.
I shall also raise in Committee the case for reducing blood-alcohol levels for drivers from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams, in line with the department's own consultation document entitled Combating Drink-Driving—Next Steps, the European Commission recommendation of January 2001, and the recent report of our own European Union Committee's Sub-Committee B. The Bill already contains welcome proposals for establishing maximum permitted blood-alcohol levels for safety-critical staff in the aviation and maritime sectors, so I find it extraordinary that the Government seem so reluctant to adopt a measure that would—on their own figures—save at least 50 lives a year, and result in 250 fewer serious injuries and 1,200 fewer slight injuries.
810
Those are detailed matters for debate in Committee. Meanwhile, I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, and am delighted to support it.
11.44 a.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, noble Lords will be pleased to know that I have already voted in the Scottish elections, so I shall not be a non-voter. I completed the constituency ballot, which had a choice of seven, and the regional ballot, which had a choice of 15. It was rather simpler to deal with the local government ward ballot, because it had a choice of only two.
I shall concentrate on Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, which deal with water, shipping and aviation. We should be glad to see those alcohol and drug regulations set out in the Bill, even though we may wish to dispute some of the levels that are laid down. It is helpful for seafarers and aircrew to know precisely what is demanded of them, rather than that they rely on the vague requirement not to be under the influence of drink and drugs. Although the limit for aircrew is minimal at 20 milligrams, I have to admit that, perversely, the limit for ground engineers and seafarers at 80 milligrams allows them to be under the influence, at least mildly. I should prefer the limit to be set at 50 milligrams, and to see that limit applied also to road users. The decision to legislate separately for off-duty crew members who have emergency tasks is undoubtedly sensible, as it will make everything quite clear and beyond doubt.
I am musing over the special regulations for fishing boats on two counts. First, why should the crew be granted the medicinal defence when other professional seafarers are not so entitled when on duty? My second point is on the prospect of ensuring that all the crew members are sober at the start of a four-day fishing trip on an early Monday morning. The duty placed on marine officials, especially harbour-masters and assistants, to detain a ship or fishing boat if it is believed that there are some drunk crew members aboard could be provoked, somewhat maliciously, by other crews reporting them on a sort of competitive basis. However, I note the huge discretion granted to the police in Clause 83(2)(b) not to attend in such circumstances, and thus allow the powers to detain the vessel to lapse. Clearly, the message is: get everyone aboard and out of sight, and leave harbour swiftly.
There are references to Scotland in both Parts 4 and 5. On the face of it, it seems as though Scotland is being exempted. However, it is even more morally gratifying to learn that this legislation is enabling the rest of the United Kingdom to catch up with the existing Scottish provisions for right of entry.
Finally in Part 4, the Armed Forces and visiting forces provisions wisely exempt such ships from being detained because of drunkenness among the crew. That could otherwise enable reluctant seamen to avoid going on a difficult exercise, or even on active service. With regard to the likely exemption of small boats and canoes from the alcohol limit, I am not yet persuaded at all as to why anyone should be allowed to be drunk

811
in charge of any craft, both from the safety angle—of the craft and its crew, and of other craft—and from the rescue angle.
In Part 5, the provisions for drink and drug offences among aircrew, ground staff and air-traffic controllers are similar in construction and layout. What is different is the alcohol limit set at 20 milligrams for aircrew and air-traffic controllers. That will obviously require the provision and availability of new, or at least recalibrated, test equipment. Although there are no separate provisions for on-duty and off-duty aircrew, Clause 93(5) makes it clear that staff on any form of stand-by are included in the drink and drug regulations.
There does not appear to be a provision for the power to detain before arrest similar to that granted to a marine official. I must therefore conclude that it will be up to the captain of the aircraft to decide to call for the police. No person at the airfield seems to have the same powers granted to them as the harbour-master.
I note the special limit granted to the licensed aircraft maintenance engineer. I should prefer the limit to be 50 milligrams, as I continue to want to see that applied in relation to the roads.
I conclude by mentioning some concerns about items that are not in the Bill. I am concerned that the Bill says nothing about an increase in security at harbours and airfields, as identified by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. Only yesterday, I read a report in the Daily Telegraph of a plan by the Home Secretary to increase airfield security, while noting that there were at least 80 airstrips in Kent alone. It is also undoubtedly true that our lengthy coastline has a myriad of small harbours and other landing places. I hope that the Minister can inform us about the new plans for airfields and, presumably, harbour security.
Secondly, as this is a transport safety Bill, I regret that there seem to be very few measures in relation to road safety, in particular to deal with intoxication, speeding, both excessively and inappropriately, the creation of a rural road hierarchy, "four-by-fours" on green lanes and mobile phone use while driving and moving.
To complete my remarks, I return to the subject of water and complain about the lack of provision in relation to buoyancy aids in small boats and canoes—a subject undoubtedly close to my heart as a dinghy sailor, canoeist and canoe instructor.
11.51 a.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as chairman of a rail freight group. In doing so, I welcome this Railways and Transport Safety Bill. As the Minister said, its prime purpose is to set up the rail accident investigation branch. I welcome that, as I do the announcement that Caroline Griffiths, an eminent mechanical engineer, has been appointed chief inspector.
As my noble friend said, the RAIB will bring the policy on rail accidents broadly in line with that on air accidents. To me, the key is the incorporation of confidential reporting. That is absolutely essential for
812
any body which wishes to get to the bottom of an accident. It will be very important that, as time and the process develop, the rail industry has confidence that confidentiality will not be breached. I am sure that it will result in much more speedy resolution of the causes of accidents without the enormous expense and the fear factor which have become endemic in the industry, caused largely, I believe, by privatisation, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner. I welcome its creation.
I also welcome the creation of the Rail Safety & Standards Board, which is completely different. It is the start of self-regulation in the industry. Part of its role includes the development of standards. Together with the European Union's Technical Specifications for Interoperability and Directives 2001/12 and 14—noble Lords will be glad to hear that I shall not go into any more detail on those—it will provide a new framework under which the railways can operate more efficiently, more safely and, I suggest, in a more cost-effective way, if they are allowed to.
At present, there are various estimates about how much the cost of doing anything on the railways has risen, but many people have said that it is at least double the cost under British Rail. Although Network Rail and the Rail Regulator are seeking to reduce and identify the cause of the costs, there is a general acceptance that the supervisory structure of the railway, the over-detailed standards and the way they are implemented are seriously out of balance compared with the application to roads. That is a major cause of such cost increases with very little, if any, safety benefit.
The new structure clearly means that the industry must manage its own safety and other standards and the custom and practice that goes with it. The Health and Safety Executive will become the national authority to ensure that the railways operate safely in accordance with EU and domestic legislation. I believe that that means a change from the structure set up to control the industry at privatisation, where every detail had to be approved, checked and reported on. In turn, that led to Railtrack—in addition to performing extremely badly—introducing a company culture of total avoidance of risk. As I said, that did little for safety, contributed greatly to the cost and added an enormous layer of bureaucracy to no benefit.
I believe that, with the creation of Network Rail, that can and must change. The Bill provides the opportunity for that to happen. I hope that the Government will allow and encourage change. Similarly, the industry must demonstrate its ability to deliver the change. Central to all this is the role of the HSE. It must take a step backwards and upwards to concentrate on its prime role—the avoidance of accidents involving people. There is some evidence that it intends to do that, and I hope that that continues. But it must take into account the similarities and competition with road transport, in terms of both passengers and freight. Therefore, I want to consider the role and responsibilities of the HSE in more detail.

813
The first question is: is the Health and Safety Executive responsible for roads? I heard yesterday from an HSE official at a conference that it was definitely responsible for road maintenance, and rightly so. In a Written Answer which I received on 22nd April 2002, the Government said:
"Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places a general duty on employers to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of the public".—[Official Report, 22/4/02; col. WA 9.]
We all know that. But the Answer went on to say that Section 3 is not enforced where public and worker safety is adequately protected by more specific legislation.
Two things arise from that. I would question whether road is adequately protected by other organisations. But I do not believe that that absolves the Health and Safety Executive from responsibility, even if it has, in my parlance, sub-contracted it. Therefore, I should be pleased to hear some comments from the Minister as to whether I have interpreted that correctly.
Secondly, I am pleased to see that the Rail Safety & Standards Board's objectives will not only cover safety but that it will also be required to promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons providing rail services. Therefore, there is also a reality check in what the board does and that is very welcome.
However, central to the whole issue is the question: what is the value of a human life? I believe that that is the issue against which all new works, maintenance, procedures and standards on the railways should be checked. It is interesting that in February the Department of Transport published a book called Managing the accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles. That is rather a dry title, but it is the first time I have ever seen a document suggest, as it does on page 55, that the Department of Transport puts the value of a human life at £1.15 million per life saved on both road and rail. I believe that is significant.
But, at a conference a few months ago, we then heard a statement by Lord Cullen in which he said that we must never have another serious rail accident where 100 people die. I wonder whether he would say the same about an air accident where 100 people were killed or if a large double-decker coach went off the top of a viaduct and everyone was killed. It is a nice thing to say but it is unachievable. One could never totally avoid an accident unless one stopped moving around. I do not believe that Lord Cullen is suggesting that there should be no railways, no roads and no air traffic. Therefore, I suggest that it is impracticable.
The only way to consider this matter is to have the same value for a life saved on road and rail and acceptance from the Health and Safety Executive, the RSSB and others that the 10,000 or so railway standards, the custom and practice and the interpretation of safety law by HSE inspectors should be assessed against those values and nothing else.
I give noble Lords one example. The Health and Safety Executive says that one cannot join two halves of a passenger train in a station because it is unsafe, even
814
though it has been done on the southern region for longer than I have been alive. Such a recommendation may not cost very much but it reduces flexibility, and there is no evidence that anyone has been killed or even injured when such coupling takes place. I believe that one can find thousands of such examples.
Therefore, I would welcome comments from my noble friend about whether the Government are interested in pursuing this line of assessing all standards, safety and regulations on the basis of one value of human life saved across, certainly, road and rail and perhaps other forms of transport as well.
On reporting, the Health and Safety Executive designates much of the railways as "hazardous". I do not know whether it is more hazardous to work on them than on a road—and I doubt whether that is hazardous in the eyes of the HSE. However, the RIDDOR regulations published in 1995 require the reporting of every conceivable occurrence on the railways to the HSE. I shall not read out all 57 pages, but they require the reporting of any case of a train striking a buffer stop where damage is caused to the train. I thought that the role of the HSE was to prevent injury to humans. Surely, the owner of the train and the infrastructure should be concerned about whether the train is damaged.
Furthermore, it is necessary to report whether, if a train strikes cattle or horse, damage is caused to the train. Why should the HSE be interested in that? Surely, the owner of the horse, possibly the police and the owner of the train are interested. As I say, there are 57 pages of regulations. I shall not bore your Lordships with them now, but they need reviewing. I hope that my noble friend will consider that they and similar regulations should be reviewed so that reporting between road and rail is brought in line. I emphasise the fact that the only time one has to report a road accident to the police is when someone is injured.
As regards charges, several noble Lords have raised the question of whether the Health and Safety Executive should be able to propose a levy. The levy consultation was extremely rushed over the Christmas period. I obtained a copy of the HSE consultation report from the Library, which was most helpful, but I do not believe that any of the consultees have received a copy of its results. That is not in line with the Government's consultation processes.
The current method of HSE charging is inefficient and inappropriate, but a levy is not much better. Furthermore, we do not know who is to be levied and on what basis, and who will decide on the amount of the levy. It is not a way of encouraging the HSE to take a step backwards and do less; it is a way of encouraging it to do more and hope that more people can pay for it.
My question is: why should the HSE pay a levy charge? Road transport does not, so why should not the costs of the HSE in relation to railways be similarly funded out of general taxation? I shall return to that matter in Committee. In that, I have the support of the CBI, the FTA and the Railway Industry Association.

815
I would make the same comment in respect of the British Transport Police. I welcome the changes proposed in the Bill, but it is a national police force so why should it not be funded out of general taxation? As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, it does not matter very much because the SRA will pay for all of it. He is right in respect of everything except Rail Freight. Rail Freight is not paid for by the SRA, so it will have to pay for the police, even though only two policemen are allocated to Rail Freight at any one time throughout the country. That is unfair, so the easiest way is for the Government to pay for the lot.
Finally, I shall have something to say about the rest of this lovely publication we received from the Department of Transport in February about cars landing on railways, the subject of the book. Although the book states that whoever is responsible for preventing cars landing on railways should pay the costs of mitigation, it appears that the Highways Agency and Network Rail have come to a cosy agreement whereby each pays 50 per cent. In my simple terms, if cars are to be prevented from landing on railways, it is the job of the highways authorities and the drivers to prevent that occurring and to pay for any mitigating measures, rather than the railways. I shall probably table an amendment on that in Committee.
Like my noble friend Lord Faulkner, I want to pay tribute to Tom Winsor, whose role is Rail Regulator, for his independence. I hope that the new structure will continue that independence with the new board. It is essential for the private sector part of the railway to retain the confidence necessary to attract private sector investment.
In conclusion, although I have raised detailed concerns, I welcome the Bill. I look forward to it completing its stages with a few positive amendments.
12.4 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I want to raise three matters. The first is peripheral, but I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the point I make and set a number of hearts and minds at rest. It relates to the position of the heritage rail associations and their operations.
Heritage railways are a large tourist attraction. They operate on some 450 miles of track and their earnings run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Whether they attract tourists from abroad is a moot point, but they are immensely popular with many people in this country who love railways, love the countryside, or simply want something to do with fractious children during school holidays or weekends. They are serious enterprises. The businesses are run by volunteers and the question is whether they should be burdened with the overhead regulation that applies to the normal railways.
I am aware of two or three such operations. The Colne Valley railway, in my part of the world, operates on about one kilometre of track. The Nene Valley railway operates on about 12 miles of track. The Romney Hythe and Dymchurch railway is a longstanding, narrow gauge but specific tourist attraction.
816
There is a serious question behind all those railway operations which are non-public service but are none the less railways. It may be a matter of technical definition, but can the Minister put at rest my mind and, more importantly, those of many other people as to whether and how much such operations are affected by the Bill and by rail safety regulation generally? I acknowledge that safety must always be an important factor, but should we not establish a specific regime to deal with their particular circumstances?
The second issue I want to raise will come as no surprise to the Minister. It relates to Clause 108. The Explanatory Notes on page 2 explain that:
"The Bill also contains a miscellaneous section, which makes provision for measures including … a duty on highway authorities to remove ice and snow from roads for which they are responsible".
Paragraph 176 of the Explanatory Notes gives the background to that. It states:
"On 15th June 2000, in the case of Goodes v East Sussex County Council, the House of Lords"
our noble and learned friends—
"decided that the duty of a highway authority, under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, to maintain a highway did not include a duty to keep the highway safe by preventing ice from forming. They considered that if such a duty were desirable, that would be a matter for Parliament".
I am immensely pleased to see the paragraph because it allows us to throw some clarity on the subject, which is of great interest and concern to highways authorities across the country. They would find it useful to have a precise definition of their responsibilities and liabilities.
However, paragraph 175 of the Explanatory Notes states:
"This clause extends to England and Wales. Clause 108 provides a duty on a highway authority to ensure, so far as is practicable, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow and ice".
There is an immediate inconsistency between those two parts of the notes. The Bill repeats the words of paragraph 175, including the words "so far as is reasonably practicable". We have to spend some time in Committee exploring by way of amendment precisely the meaning of those words. I can see why they are there. Local authorities cannot control the weather and would have great difficulty if there was an obligation to prevent the formation of snow and ice on roads. One can think of events last winter where huge problems arose, particularly the event on the M11. One could imagine writs flying around and cases arising as a result of what happened. This is an important matter. It will greatly affect the costs of highway authorities if they are bound to have more and more cases against them.
The third subject relates to the use of drugs in various forms of occupation. I am grateful to the Minister for his exposition at the beginning of the Bill. The Bill deals with the use of alcohol and drugs in both the maritime and aviation sectors. It defines offences for both sectors with great precision in relation to alcohol. I hope the Minister will forgive me raising this, but a few weeks ago on 4th April I introduced a

817
Bill relating to the prevention of driving when under the influence of drugs. The Minister rightly raised the criticism that a great part of the difficulty with that Bill is that of deciding how to measure impairment in relation to drugs. I have considered the wording in this Bill and it does nothing to tackle that specific issue. Subsequently, I spoke to the Minister about that Bill and he gave me the assurance that the Government are working on this matter and hope to bring forward legislation at some future date.
It seems rather peculiar that we should be dealing with the subject of drugs and drug impairment in a piecemeal way. What we have here created is an offence which will be difficult to deal with if we do not tackle the question of impairment or a definition of being affected by drugs. Again, this is a matter which we should explore further in Committee by way of amendment. I shall have to decide precisely how to do that, but the Minister will not be in the least surprised that this particular subject arises once again.
Those are three subjects which are relevant to the Bill. It would be helpful on many fronts if we could deal with those matters and get better definition as a consequence of the passage of the Bill. I welcome the Bill in its entirety, as have all noble Lords who have spoken.
12.13 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, your Lordships will be glad to learn that I do not intend to repeat everything other noble Lords have said. Therefore, I have struck a line through probably about nine-tenths of what I was going to say. Of the one-tenth, half relates to the Bill and the other half does not.
What is the logic between the differing levels for aircrew and engineers when the latter may also be working at night and subject to the additional effects of fatigue as well as alcohol? That seems totally inconsistent. Further, what is the logic of comparing the maritime sector with motorised road users rather than with aviation? Again, that is inconsistent. Why are harbour masters not included in this legislation when air traffic controllers are, as mentioned by the noble Viscount. Lord Astor?
I ceased to be a professional mariner in 1968. A couple of years before then, just prior to taking my master's certificate, we were leaving port—it happened to be in Australia but it could have been here—when the captain was totally and completely incapable through drink. If that happened here under the Bill, or the Act as it will become, who would enforce that? Would it be the harbour master, who is not subject to these regulations on alcohol levels? He might be three times over the limit and could not care a damn. What is the relevance of it?
Similar to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the second aspect I want to raise is a total digression from the Bill. A crash on the railway attracts everyone's attention even if there are no injuries or deaths to crew or passengers. Yet a death on the road, even if there are
818
four, five, six, or Heaven knows how many people involved, rarely attracts the attention of the media, except in the local press.
Indications have been given by Ministers that a road safety Bill will be introduced in some future parliamentary Session. It is a pity that that has not already happened. That is to be welcomed, but we must not lose sight of the fact that more people are killed and injured on our roads than by any other form of transport. If only one jumbo jet crashed in this country every month, something would be done. But in effect that is how many people, in rough terms, are killed on our roads every month.
I urge the Government to pay more than lip service to those killed and seriously injured on our roads. The cost savings would be immense and the health service and other government departments would benefit accordingly, as would the country.
12.16 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, several speakers have alluded to the maritime section of the Bill. It will come as no surprise to the Minister or, indeed, to your Lordships, that I shall concentrate my brief remarks on that particular section.
As regards professional seafarers, most shipping companies have in place alcohol policies which are far stricter than those proposed in the Bill. Therefore, concern that the Bill might possibly undermine those have been unfounded. As to recreational seafarers—there have been several mentions of yachtsmen—the Government admitted at the outset when the Minister introduced the Bill in another place that that would present difficulties. The Minister here also alluded to that in his remarks.
I believe that all of us would recognise that blanket enforcement of alcohol policies and breathalysers on the yachting and boating fraternity as a whole would be completely impractical, not to mention hugely expensive. That conjures up some wonderful scenes, with which the cartoonists would have a field day. Imagine, for instance a couple of policemen in a boat observing a yacht innocently tacking its way up ahead. One policeman, reaching for his breathalyser and at the same trying to switch on the blue flashing light says to his colleague, "Come along sarge, full speed ahead. We've got one here".
There are those kind of difficulties and also the fact that unlike cars and trains, boats do not run on roads or rails; they veer all over the ocean. That does not necessarily mean that the occupant at the wheel is incapacitated through alcohol.
I have mentioned exorbitant expense, a matter touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Paragraph 105 of the Explanatory Notes, states:
"The Association of Chief Police Officers has indicated that the slightly increased resource implications for the police would be largely offset by use of current resources such as harbour launches and search and rescue helicopters".
I am bound to say that the operators of harbour launches have other duties to perform for much of their time. Harbour authorities would not be too

819
pleased if their boats were commandeered by policemen to chase drunken yachtsmen. On that same subject, rescue helicopters are also exorbitantly expensive if it comes to dealing with any alcohol-related offence.
In his introductory remarks I believe that the Minister said that the Government are taking a proportionate approach. I welcome that. He said that certain types of craft, such as rowing boats, sailing dinghies and narrow boats probably would be excluded. I take great comfort from that. It means that even drunk as a Lord after a heavy night ashore I can still row myself back on board without being prosecuted. As regards Members of your Lordships' House who take part in the annual dinghy race on the River Thames against another place, similarly we will be let off the hook.
As the Minister said, in terms of recreational craft, the measures are aimed primarily at fast motor-boats and personalised water craft, known as jet-skis these days. But I am bound to say that in the 30 or so years that they have been in use, incidents have been remarkably few and far between. Again, I take comfort from the final words in paragraph 105 of the Explanatory Notes. Regarding breath tests, it is envisaged that the numbers required are expected to be low, as would be the number of prosecutions.
The Government are treating this area of the Bill in the correct way. Negotiations are going on with the boating authorities regarding the regulations. I think that everything will hang on the regulations in this instance. We look forward to seeing what they will produce in the long term. In the mean time, the Minister will be pleased to know that at present I have no reason to table any amendments.
12.21 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the British Airline Pilots Association. Before I turn to the aspect of aviation, in my view, this Bill is to be warmly welcomed. Passenger safety is of critical importance, whatever the mode of travel. This debate has underlined that aspect.
I turn now to Part 5 which the union has explored in considerable depth for a long period. The union has also had most useful correspondence with the Minister of State to which I shall allude in some detail. BALPA wrote to the Minister suggesting harmonisation with procedures adopted by the Federal Aviation Authority in America and applied in the British helicopter industry over several years. It was suggested that it would be appropriate for there to be 40 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. Arguments in support of that were advanced. However, I do not propose to elaborate on that today because the Minister chose not to accept that aspect of the submission made by BALPA.
Suffice to say that that is worthy of more consideration and, of course, we shall have an opportunity to do that. But the Minister of State was clearly of the view that as regards air crew an even higher standard—namely, 20 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood—should apply. That applies to
820
train, coach, taxi and lorry drivers, as the Minister of State pointed out in the correspondence. But I am not wholly convinced that this parallel should be applicable. I am not proposing to pursue the same point today, but I think that I shall return to it later.
I want to argue for extensive peer intervention. Indeed, this is not unprecedented. It is applied in the United States through the human intervention and motivation system. It has worked as an alternative to criminal sanctions. Moreover, as the Minister of State pointed out—but it is not generally well known—the CAA utilises a procedure of this kind. In short" what the Minister of State has elaborated on is that peer intervention should be considered as complementary rather than an alternative to the provisions of the Bill. I agree with that approach.
How specifically is peer intervention to be applied evenly throughout the industry? There can all too easily be a disparity of procedure if companies introduce their own safety schemes. In my view, this is to be avoided in favour of a comprehensive application of a workable procedure. This matter should be dealt with in the Bill or by regulation. I await what the Minister has to say about that.
I turn now to the police rights of entry introduced in Clause 95. The present position needs some reinforcement. Equally, there is a need to avoid alarming passengers unduly. It would be best, in my view, that the operator should appoint an agent and that the alleged miscreant should be transferred to a side room. It is there that the police should undertake whatever tests they propose. If the person concerned refuses to co-operate in the aircraft, the police should be able to exercise their right of entry. All that can be dealt with procedurally; but out of sight, out of mind is not a bad dictum to guide us in this regard.
In a minority of cases, there is a danger that a person wrongly suspected, acting through pique or a genuine sense of grievance, would be unable to fly. Should such a situation arise—it cannot be left entirely to the individual in question—there should be a strong presumption that the flight crew should be stood down from that particular duty.
There are other matters concerning aviation which can be left appropriately to Committee stage. In the main, the Bill performs a valuable function regarding aviation.
I turn to certain aspects of the Bill which, as far as railways are concerned, implement some of the recommendations of the reports into the Southall and Ladbroke Grove cases. As others have asked my noble friend before, in what regard are the recommendations not applicable as far as the Bill is concerned?
What, in my view, is of the highest significance is the establishment of the rail accident investigation branch, rather like the Air Accident Investigation Branch. My noble friend Lord Berkeley, with whom I worked closely in opposition on transport matters, emphasised the importance of confidential reporting. I think he is entirely right about that. Incidentally, when at the end of his remarks he referred to cars venturing on to

821
railways, I became vividly concerned that he was referring to cows. However, I have been confidently assured by him that he meant to refer to cars.
As PACTS points out, the enforcement of drug and alcohol legislation comparable to that in place for the roads is of inestimable importance. Having said that, why are the words which apply to air accidents, namely "the sole objective", omitted? In my view, the improvement of the safety of the railways and the prevention of accidents and incidents is all-important.
Perhaps I can ask my noble friend two specific points. What is envisaged will be dealt with by regulations rather than by this Bill, and what does he hope will be achieved by a voluntary application? What do the Government expect will be the result of the European Rail Safety Directive?
In all, the Bill, despite some omissions, advances the cause of safety in significant areas of transport. For that reason, it is worthy of support.
12.33 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, it has been, as ever, a privilege to listen to the contributions of noble Lords on transport. From these Benches, we offer our wholehearted support for the legislation, and assure the Minister that the concerns that we will express during the Bill's passage in no way detract from our support for it. Those concerns are born of a genuine commitment and, in many cases, many years of expertise. I hope that the Government will accept our comments in the spirit in which they are intended.
I start by declaring some interests. I am an elected member of Suffolk County Council, chair of the Local Government Association Transport Executive, a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport and of First Great Eastern's advisory board.
My noble friend Lord Bradshaw has flagged up some of our concerns about the Bill and some of the issues to which we intend to return during the later stages. We need to discuss the precise remit of the rail accident investigation branch and whether the wording of the Bill is exactly right. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw, along with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, all referred to the need for greater clarity with regard to the roles of the various organisations involved in rail safety. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a powerful point about the need to balance the level of bureaucracy with the delivery of safety. We agree with him that we need to look most carefully at the levy on the rail companies for the Health and Safety Executive. We join the Conservative Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Lord Lord Berkeley, in wishing to look at the powers and exact jurisdiction of the British Transport Police.
I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie for his insight into marine and aviation issues. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the issues raised by the Conservative Benches on the Government's response to the Wheeler report which has a particular salience as far as the Bill is concerned.
822
Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that local authorities are taking a particular interest in Clause 108 on the clearance of snow and ice. They were expecting legislation later in the year as part of a street works Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, implied, there are concerns about the exact interpretation of "reasonably practicable" and its implications for finance but, more importantly, the likelihood and nature of court challenge. The fact is, local authorities have detailed winter maintenance plans and, in most local authorities, at most times, they work. It would be a great pity if problematic legislation were to be enacted primarily on the basis of a few days when the system collapsed in a small number of places. I have a fear that these clauses are accompanied by the gentle click of joints as knees jerk throughout the Department for Transport.
I was originally under the impression that this was intended to be a railway Bill only, and I welcome the fact that it is now the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. I take a pragmatic view that parliamentary time, being limited and very precious, should be used to maximum benefit for the public. The opportunity therefore should be taken to include some other measures which have so far not found parliamentary time.
It is of course quite right that the Government and the industry should take an ever-closer look at rail safety following the tragic accidents at Paddington, Southall, Potters Bar and Hatfield. It is vital that passengers are not just as safe as they can possibly be but that they feel safe. The switch from rail to road in the aftermath of those incidents might be understandable but it puts those passengers at much greater risk, given the much greater statistical likelihood of an accident on the road rather than on the railways. We heard some very important figures from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a particularly interesting point on the need for equality and parity in the way that we measure accidents in different modes of transport.
I was particularly interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, refer to recreational railways. I have to confess that I had not given that any thought, so I look forward to hearing more about it.
This country has a good record on highway safety compared with other countries, but that leaves no room for complacency. Each of the 3,500 deaths that occur each year on our roads is a personal tragedy. We on these Benches are looking to the Government to put into practice some of the policies that they outlined in their road safety strategy three years ago. For example, we are still awaiting the regulations on home zones and quiet lanes which were introduced in the Transport Act 2000. I tabled Written Questions on this both last year and this year and was told that the regulations were on their way, but so far we still do not have them. The same applies to camera enforcements of bus lanes outside London—they were also part of the Transport Act and we still do not have them.

823
I am very disappointed that the proposed review of the rural road hierarchy as laid out in the Transport Act 2000 has never taken place. The rural road network is of particular significance in accident reduction. There is a large body of evidence suggesting that the unsuitability of much of the network for the national speed limit of 60 miles an hour is at least partly to blame for these accidents. I am very pleased that PACTS and the Council for the Protection of Rural England are supporting this change.
Another road safety issue is that of the drink-driving limit. Most countries have limits considerably lower than ours, and there is a massive body of evidence to show that the reduction to 50 milligrams has a positive effect, not only on the number of road crashes but on the rate of offending. I join other noble Lords in wanting more clarification, perhaps at a later stage, on the reasoning behind apparent inconsistencies between the limits for different modes of transport. We especially support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in his crusade on the issue of drugs and driving.
There are three other road-based issues that I shall raise. Two of these relate to the power of the Traffic Commissioners. Firstly, there are a number of circumstances in which heavy goods vehicles can be impounded, some of which are safety related. However, a loophole in the legislation means that vehicles that are on hire cannot be impounded. It is not unreasonable to suggest that hired vehicles are, if anything. more likely to be in breach of the rules, yet the sanction of impounding is not available.
Secondly, we wish to consider the question of extending the powers of the Traffic Commissioner with regard to heavy goods operating centres. Currently, most sites do not require planning permission in order to become licensed for HGV use, and therefore the local authority has no remit in the matter. The Traffic Commissioners have only powers to take into account the site itself and its immediate access on to the road network. In other words, provided that the immediate access is deemed to be safe, it does not matter how unsuitable or dangerous the rest of the road network might be—no one has the power to do anything about it. That is a situation that needs urgent rectification.
My final point is, I have to admit, only tangentially related to highway safety, but I hope nevertheless that your Lordships might feel moved to support me. It is the question of vehicular use of motorised vehicles on national trails. Whatever the current law allows, it seems unreasonable to most people that vehicles can travel on some of our most ancient and best loved recreational trails, such as the Ridgeway. For most people who walk, the great pleasure is in escaping from wheeled vehicles. Their presence on these routes is objectionable to most people, and the mixing of walkers, cyclists and horses with vehicles on these routes is at least potentially dangerous.
I hope that your Lordships do not object to my raising some of these issues in the context of this Bill. It is a subject on which I have some strong and passionate beliefs, for which I make no apology. Some
824
five years ago, a close friend received the phone call that every parent dreads. His 15-year-old daughter had been knocked down on her way back from school by a vehicle travelling at 60 miles an hour in a 30 milean-hour limit. For weeks, she clung to life, and after that her long-term prospects did not look good. However, the determination of her parents, the very special care that she received at the head injuries unit at Tadworth in Surrey, and above all her own spirit, mean that today she leads an almost normal life. However, having observed at close hand the misery represented by every single one of the statistics to which we refer, I cannot remain neutral on the matter.
I wish the Bill well.
12.43 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, we have had a most refreshing debate. As so often happens in your Lordships' House, speeches have reflected the knowledge and expertise that is the great strength of the House.
I simply want to reiterate some of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and other speakers. My noble friend asked a large number of questions, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer most of them.
There is no doubt that the confidence of the general public in the safety of travel by rail was very badly shaken by the series of fatal disasters, in particular in Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters Bar. Statistics show how relatively safe rail travel is compared to the roads" but the public perception has been otherwise. Why is that? The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, had the answer—it is because rail disasters always become media events, and casualties sadly tend to be extensive. Far greater numbers die overall in accidents on the roads, but they get little media coverage, unless the incident is a multi-vehicle smash on a motorway, with a correspondingly large number of casualties.
As a result of those accidents, various investigations have taken place and weaknesses have been revealed that this Bill seeks to remedy. The Cullen inquiry made a large number of recommendations to the Health and Safety Executive, many of which have already been acted on. The proposed rail accident investigation branch, which everyone welcomes, is an eminently sensible development and the main plank of the Bill. Incidentally, we are pleased that the RAIB will produce an annual report of its activities.
As my noble friend said, our party regards the Bill as largely uncontroversial, as was reflected in another place on Second Reading. However, we shall address some details in Committee and I shall mention some of our concerns now.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred to the Heritage Railway Association, which is important from a tourism point of view, especially as regards English rather than foreign tourists. It must be a moot point how much small, slow railways should be subject to rail safety regulations designed for very different railway conditions.

825
Part 2 of the Bill provides for a new regulatory board to replace the Rail Regulator, in line with standard practice for regulating utilities. We notice that the functions will remain the same.
Part 3 deals with British Transport Police, as mentioned by several of your Lordships, and particularly the jurisdiction boundaries. British Transport Police are not very happy with those proposals, and we shall explore that issue in Committee.
Part 4 deals with the statutory alcohol and drugs limits for crews of water-borne vessels in UK waters. That particular item has been discussed by more noble Lords than any other during the debate. I understand that the enforcement of the new regulations will be similar to that for drink-drivers on the roads, but passengers in cars who might have to take over in an emergency are not subject to drink-drive testing, whereas stand-by crew members on a ship are. However, crewmen of lifeboats are on permanent stand-by. Can they never, ever, have a glass of beer? Enforcement of the marine limits on drink in port should present no particular problem, but how does a police launch deal with a 55,000-ton container ship that is yawing all over the Solent? Do pilots have a role in that? There is also a proposal to extend the regulations to amateurs, but how does one define a fast motor boat or a cruiser? There is, I admit, a good case for jet skis being included in the Bill, as they are very dangerous articles. I also have a horrific vision of police launches descending on Henley Royal Regatta—not on the rowers but on the launches, which are a feature of that event.
I am glad that the Government will consult as to where lines will be drawn and hope that common sense will prevail. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, stated, a proportionate regime is required.
Part 5 lays down the alcohol and drug limits for air crew and all those involved in aircraft movements. I am surprised that that had not been done before. Like everyone else, we all thoroughly approve of those measures.
The Bill seeks to do a great deal to make travel safer for us all, but it must not be considered to be a panacea for all causes of accident and incident. In the end, however good the precautions and clever the technology, it will come down to the human element. Therefore, there is no substitute for rigorous training and the best possible supervision.
Technology is improving all the time and to update it always costs companies and governments far more than they feel able to afford. However, the public will not tolerate accidents occurring because of underfunding of relevant, new technological advances that are aimed at, and capable of, saving life.
I look forward to the Minister's reply to this excellent debate and conclude by wishing the Bill a fair wind from these Benches.
12.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has, as always, been well informed, but on this occasion, it has been entirely constructive and supportive of the Bill. I am immensely grateful for that.
Due to the large number of questions that were raised and in order not to detain your Lordships from their lunch—at least, those noble Lords who do not have to take part in the debate on the next Bill—I propose a hierarchy in the way in which I shall respond. Where there were questions about the content of the Bill, I shall do my best to respond to them in as much detail as is necessary. Where there were questions which were not about matters in the Bill but which sought reassurance or information, I shall do my best to respond, but some questions were some way from the subject matter of the Bill. Where markers were put down for amendments in Committee on matters that are not included in the Bill at the moment, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I wait to see the whites of their eyes. I will address those matters in Committee rather than now. Otherwise, I will address the Bill in the order in which it is printed.
I turn first to the rail accident investigation branch. I am grateful for the welcome that was given to it and, in light of the fact that it was one of Lord Cullen's recommendations, I am sure that it is acceptable.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked which of Lord Cullen's recommendations were accepted. There were 295 recommendations from the Ladbroke Grove and Southall reports, some of which overlapped. My understanding is that 179 of them have already been met.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked whether I could assure him of the independence of the rail accident investigation branch. Yes, it is fully independent of the Strategic Rail Authority and the Office of the Rail Regulator, as Cullen recommended. It will be responsible for its own conclusions and recommendations.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked who would be responsible for prosecutions. The whole idea of the rail accident investigation branch is to produce a quick report so that safety recommendations can be implemented quickly without allocating blame. The more detailed investigation and any subsequent prosecution would remain with the police and the Health and Safety Executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked why the phrase "wherever relevant" is in the provisions for the rail accident investigation branch. Our idea is that there may be occasions when the rail accident investigation branch is called on to help the Air Accident Investigation Branch and the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. That phrase will enable them to do so.
There has been some confusion—but not in this House—about the relationship between the rail accident investigation branch and other bodies. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble

827
Viscount, Lord Astor, about that. Now that I know who has taken part in the Second Reading debate, it might be helpful if I copied that letter to all those noble Lords. The important point is that the Bill does not alter the statutory basis of the Health and Safety Executive, which is, and will remain, the rail safety regulator.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out that the Health and Safety Executive should concentrate on prevention, but it must also take action in respect of breaches of health and safety regulation. That is true not only for the railways, but also for wherever it operates. I confirm to him that the Health and Safety Executive has an overarching brief for health and safety wherever there is not more precise sector legislation, which can be more detailed and effective. All of the other bodies remain unchanged, but the new body will be the rail safety and standards board. That will be an industry body which sets operating standards. That is accountable to its membership, which is drawn from the rail industry. There is no conflict with the rail accident investigation branch.
Turning to the general rail safety issues, I agree with a number of noble Lords who confirmed that rail is one of the safest forms of road transport. I was struck by the remark that it is more dangerous to get to the station than it is to travel on the train. Travel by rail is six times safer than travel by car.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made some points about the reporting of accidents. That is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive and we are anxious to maintain its independence from government.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the European safety directive. That is still being debated by the European Parliament, but any regulations that are enacted after Royal Assent will comply with the directive.
There was a general welcome for the change in the structure of the Office of the Rail Regulator and there were tributes to the work of Tom Winsor, the Rail Regulator. I can confirm that the change in structure is in no way to be interpreted as a criticism of Tom Winsor. It is planned not to take place before the middle of next year, which is the end of Tom Winsor's term of office. There are no other changes in the functions and duties of the Office of the Rail Regulator.
I turn to the British Transport Police. There was a general welcome for the change in its governance, but some specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked why the authority should not appoint its own chairman. The Secretary of State is appointing all the members of the authority. It would be a little odd for him to delegate the appointment of the chairman to a body that he had appointed himself. If I were asked to be appointed to a body of that kind, I would want to know who the chairman was before deciding whether to accept. I would want the chairman to have some say in the appointment of the other members. He could not do that unless he were appointed first.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery. The
828
arrangement recommended by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw is well understood and accepted in the museum and galleries world.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not doubt that.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I have been a member of a police authority for a long time. I think that we have changed chairmen four times. It emerged from the membership that they wanted a change of leadership and that in a closely knit body some people are better than others.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed, my Lords. That could happen. I have no doubt that if it did, the members of the authority would make their views known to the Secretary of State. We are talking about a new authority. I hope that we would wish the chairman of the new authority to have some say in the appointment of the other members.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner asked whether the British Transport Police could appoint community support officers. The chief constable has not raised that matter with us in the past. Clearly, any such request will be considered seriously.
A number of points were raised—notably by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley—about the funding of the British Transport Police. It has been funded by the railway industry ever since its creation in the 19th century. It is not really equivalent to the funding of the police on the roads because we do not have a roads police. We have police who cover roads and other matters. They are funded by general taxation, which includes vehicle excise duty and fuel duty from motorists and the road transport industry. So the comparison and the demand for equivalence is not really appropriate. In any event, we are talking about a budget of £136 million, which is less than 2 per cent of the rail industry's turnover and excludes London Underground.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley made a specific point regarding the rail freight industry. Freight operators will pay about £1 million in 2003–04, which is less than 1 per cent of the British Transport Police's total budget and far less than 0.1 per cent of the freight companies' turnover.
The noble Viscount. Lord Astor, the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Luke, my noble friend Lord Faulkner, and no doubt other noble Lords, referred to jurisdiction outside the railways. The position is that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act gave the British Transport Police jurisdiction outside the railways in urgent situations on non-railway matters. The Act, following serious debate—perhaps I may put it that way—in Parliament included a sunset clause. It provides that the Secretary of State should appoint a committee of Privy Counsellors who must report within two years—that is, by December this year. The Secretary of State will lay a copy of the report before Parliament as soon as possible; and the report can operate so that all or part of the Act can cease to have effect six months after the report is laid

829
before Parliament. But if both Houses of Parliament pass a Motion within that period, then the provisions in question will remain on the statute book.
We do not want to pre-empt what the committee of Privy Counsellors will say on this or on any other matter on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. Having made that provision, it would be wrong for us to pre-empt its decision in response to strong pressure within Parliament. However, first, we believe that it is highly unlikely that the committee of Privy Counsellors will think that the jurisdiction outside the railways should not continue; and, secondly, if by any chance the committee of Privy Counsellors do so decide, we shall take action in the six-month period which is allowed to ensure that it does continue. Therefore, there will be continuity. I do not believe any amendment is necessary on that matter.
We have had little discussion of the amendments to the Greater London Authority Act. Because of its complexity, I am grateful for that. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked me when the transfer will take place. We are keen for it to take place as soon as possible. But, for the reasons that I have given, we need the Bill in order to ensure that the PPP contracts will continue as intended, and as intended originally in the Greater London Authority Act. The transfer cannot take place until the Bill is passed. Transport for London is involved in all these negotiations. It will give any assurances that are required.
There was generally—but not universally—a current of feeling that the Health and Safety Executive functions for the rail industry should not be charged to the rail industry. My noble friend Lord Berkeley made the comparison with roads. We are now talking about a figure only of £9 million cost, of which 55 per cent is for operational work that is being charged hourly. These are very small sums in relation to the costs of the rail industry. The Bill simplifies and improves the ways in which those sums are calculated.
On marine alcohol, I was shocked to hear the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, suggest that anyone who takes part in the Lords and Commons dinghy race might be under the influence of drink. I look to him for an "absolute assurance"—because that is how governments are always asked for assurances—that that is not the case. Of course the issue of who should be included or excluded is difficult. That is why we are consulting on the details rather than laying it down in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, would wish for no exclusions; the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, poured scorn on that suggestion: I shall leave it to them to fight it out.
As to the question of harbour masters, they will be subject to the legislation when they are acting in a professional capacity on board a boat, but not otherwise. There are no equivalents to harbour masters and air traffic controllers. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised the question of costs. They are set out in the regulatory impact assessment. However, I can give him a general assurance that they are not very significant.
830
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, made specific points about the medical defence for fishermen. Those provisions are unchanged from Section 117 of the Merchant Shipping Act. As to the point raised about standbys, who are people who must hold themselves ready to take over in a case of an emergency, clearly, that is not possible for lifeboats and fishing vessels.
I shall not comment about the demand, in particular from the Liberal Democrat Benches, for a decrease in the alcohol limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams. We shall respond to any amendments that are tabled.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked me about our response to the Wheeler report. I shall write to him on that point.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister leaves the subject of alcohol limits, what is the justification for different limits rather than one limit for all those involved in safety?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had intended to turn to that matter. We propose that the alcohol limit should be set at 20 milligrams for air crew and air traffic controllers. The reason is that a combination of concentration, unremitting attention and exceedingly swift reaction is required for air crew and air traffic controllers. That is why we have set a tougher limit. That does not apply—this is in response to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon—to aircraft maintenance engineers. They of course have to be sober to do their work, but speed of reaction is not critical in aircraft maintenance work any more than it is in any other vehicle maintenance work.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis suggested that we should adopt a process of peer intervention, as happens in the United States. I was glad to hear him suggest that it should be complementary to statutory limits rather than instead of them. In so far as it is complementary, it should be a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority rather than for legislation. But testing and the exercise of breathalyser powers should be and will be the responsibility of the police under the Act.
This is not a road safety Bill. We have a legislative programme and we shall have in due course, when parliamentary time allows, a road safety Bill. Out of the goodness of our hearts, and because we were already convinced of the merits of the case, we allowed two road safety measures—on seat belts for van drivers and on snow and ice—into the Bill in another place, but I do not want to encourage a Christmas tree. I do not want to encourage a whole range of other measures.
I listened carefully to what was said about mobile phones. We are consulting on that and will report on our conclusions as soon as possible. I listened to what was said about the 80 milligram limit. We said no to that, giving our reasons, last March—on the basis that with a slightly higher limit, we also have significantly higher penalties than countries with lower limits.
On the specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the Heritage Rail Association is of course covered for accidents, as I am sure that he

831
would want it to be, but for many other aspects of regulation, it is not covered by public service agreements. However, it is represented on the Health and Safety Commission. On the issue of snow and ice, the phrase "reasonably practicable" follows that used in Scotland, where it seems to work all right. I gave my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about driving under impairment from drugs when I responded to his Private Member's Bill. I have nothing to add to that.
As I said, because I have exceeded any reasonable time, I shall resist the temptation to respond to those other matters that are not contained in the Bill, but of course they will be given due and careful consideration if and when they arise in Committee. I am grateful to noble Lords for their welcome for the Bill and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.

Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill
1.12 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 has been a great success. It provides the legislative basis for a number of measures providing financial assistance to industry. I shall give some examples of how it has been used in a moment. But the power will run out in about a year's time, unless the ceiling of expenditure is raised. The Bill provides for that by raising the ceiling and allowing the Section 8 power to continue to be used. Since 1972, when a similar power was first introduced, more than 60 measures have been established using the Section 8 power, of which 15 are still in operation at present.
In recent years, we have increased our expenditure under Section 8, for which we make no apologies. We are using it more than the previous government, although the previous government enacted both the 1972 and 1982 Acts. We have been introducing initiatives to improve the competitiveness of the economy and to help with the consequences of industries in transition, such as coal.
Eight of the current schemes are operated by the Small Business Service, established in 2000 to meet the needs of small businesses. With the exception of the small firms loan guarantee, all of them have been introduced by this Government as part of measures to bridge the funding gap faced by small businesses. The small firms loan guarantee offers guarantees on loans to small firms with viable business proposals that cannot get conventional finance because they do not have assets to offer as security against a loan. We provide a guarantee against default, which encourages lenders to lend where they would not otherwise do so.
We have reviewed that process and extended the small firms loan guarantee on 1st April. The other Small Business Service schemes are the UK high-technology
832
fund, the regional venture capital funds, the early growth funding initiative, the enterprise grant scheme, the business incubation fund and two elements of the Phoenix Fund—support for community development finance institutions and the Government's investment in a community development venture capital fund.
The scheme is also used for particular industrial sectors, notably the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme, introduced in 2000 to help the coal industry at an especially difficult time. That scheme came to an end at the end of December and had accounted for almost £170 million by the end of the previous financial year. It did what it set out to do: it helped coal producers to stay afloat and to overcome short-term market problems. That was good news for the miners employed and for the local communities and service industries that depended on them.
We also used Section 8 last year to supplement redundancy payments to those who lost their jobs following flooding at Longannet Colliery, the last deep mine in Scotland. We are in negotiation with the European Commission about our intention to use Section 8 to support redundancy payments arising from closure of UK Coal's Selby complex.
Section 8 was also used to make payments to redundant steelworkers through the iron and steel employees readaptation benefits scheme. Most recently, we used it for the urban post office reinvention programme, to enable the Post Office to carry out its programme to restructure the urban post office network and ensure that sub-postmasters whose offices close are compensated for the loss of value of their business, and that those who stay can benefit from investment grants. That will probably account for about £210 million of the money left under the 1982 Act.
The National Assembly for Wales uses Section 8 to operate two schemes: the regional innovation grant and Assembly investment grant schemes. It funds those initiatives, but the expenditure counts towards the cumulative Section 8 limit.
The European Community is involved because, where assistance under Section 8 is regarded as state aid, it must be compatible with state aid rules. Any new scheme under Section 8 that is a state aid needs to be notified to and approved by the European Commission before it can be introduced, unless it falls within one of the bloc exemptions, when simpler notifications procedures can be adopted and the aid can be given immediately. We have told the Commission of our intention to raise the limits in the Bill.
Together, those schemes have accounted for the increase in Section 8 expenditure. Without the new limits, we would run out of money when the current limit of £2.7 billion allowed for under the 1982 Act is reached. At the end of March 2002, cumulative expenditure since 1972 was almost £2.35 billion. For the financial year 2002–03, the provisional figure is £130 million. For the current financial year, we forecast a further £208 million, and £221 million in financial year 2004–05. So we expect to reach the current limit by early next year.

833
Section 8 assistance has always been subject to a statutory limit that could be raised by Commons affirmative order on up to four occasions. That dates back to the Industry Act 1972. All expenditure since then counts towards the cumulative limit. We have retained the structure of tranches in the 1982 Act, but replaced the numerical ceilings with new, higher ones, reflecting the growth of the economy since 1982.
Clause 1 replaces Section 8(5) of the 1982 Act by increasing the initial ceiling from £1.9 billion to £3.7 billion, and the subsequent four tranches from up to £200 million to up to £600 million each. Clause 2 simply gives the short title.
Limits were chosen with regard to the effect of rolling forward the existing limit of £2.7 billion in real terms, using 2.5 per cent as the proxy for the long term gross domestic product deflator for a 20-year period. That gave a ceiling of £4.5 billion and four subsequent tranches of £400 million each. We varied that to create a lower ceiling and larger tranches because we wanted to provide more regular scrutiny than that which would have been provided otherwise. If we have a lower initial ceiling and bigger tranches, we reach the same ultimate ceiling of £6.1 billion. As this is a money Bill, the House of Commons has more regular scrutiny.
To give an example from the 1982 Act, the first tranche was not exhausted; therefore, there was no parliamentary scrutiny for 14 years after the Act was passed. Under this Act, there will be scrutiny after around six years and after that at more regular intervals—probably every three years—until the ultimate limit is reached. Parliamentary scrutiny is not very serious. The House of Commons takes an average of around half an hour to consider the orders. We expect the provisions under this Bill to continue for almost 20 years. If expenditure increases, the limit will be reached sooner, and, if it is reduced, it will be reached later. That compares favourably with how the 1982 Act operated. It provides a more rational chance for the House of Commons to consider the need for more money.
The House of Commons also has the opportunity to scrutinise larger cases of assistance to industry—those of more than £10 million for any one project. That was provided in Section 8(8) of the 1982 Act and is being maintained. We have no plans to raise that threshold.
I suggest that the proposals represent a way of continuing a worthwhile project agreed by both major parties and, I believe, supported by the Liberal Democrats. We believe that the Bill provides the best basis for continuing support for industry and accountability to Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
1.22 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, 1st May being election day I cannot allow one of the Minister's points to go unanswered. So far as I am aware, the Conservative
834
Opposition are still one of the three major parties. But I am perfectly happy to accept that the Minister's remark was a slip of the tongue.
The debate on this Bill in the House of Commons was materially extensive. The Conservative Opposition and my own party raised several very significant points and concerns. Having read the material and reflected on the matter, I do not believe that this House is the appropriate place for an extensive debate on the Bill, because not only are we approaching the lunch hour but this is a money Bill. Our words will simply be recorded in Hansard without any potential effect other than perhaps to influence debate.
The underlying thrust of the concerns expressed on the Bill in another place—which I share—relates to whether a framework of legislation that was appropriate in 1982 will remain an appropriate structure for the modern economy from 2003 onwards. After all, taking the example of industrial assistance, in 1982, when the legislation originated, we still had a significant manufacturing sector, with highly concentrated industries such as coal, steel and shipbuilding. As those industries ran down, there was a significant need for adjustment assistance, which could be provided under the Section 8 powers. I would welcome a response from the Minister as to whether he really thinks that, 21 years later, that degree of industrial assistance is still as necessary.
The second concern, which was raised quite extensively in another place, relates to the small industry loan guarantee scheme which the Minister correctly said was significantly used. He failed to mention that, since the scheme was introduced in recognition of the fact that the banking system was defective in providing loans to small-and medium-sized businesses, the Cruickshank report has been published. It made many recommendations on how the banking sector ought to deal with the difficulties that the small industry loan guarantee scheme was introduced to deal with. The Minister seems to assume that the guarantee scheme will continue in its existing format, with exactly the same requirements. He makes no reference to how the Government propose to ensure that the Cruickshank report's conclusions are followed through. To a large extent, that would remove the need for the scheme.
The third substantive point raised on all sides of the House of Commons was accountability. I note with interest that the Minister indicated wryly that, although parliamentary scrutiny took place in another place, we should not take it seriously as regards its effectiveness. The substantive point is that, notwithstanding the existence of this power for more than 20 years, there has never been a significant report from the DTI—which would normally be expected in the commercial sector—evaluating the success of the programmes and financial assistance given, using normal means of business measurement; the opportunity cost, alternatives and effectiveness. Although noble Lords have no power other than to speak in this debate on the Bill, it would reassure many of us and many critics of the increase in

835
the power if the Minister could indicate whether the Government propose to improve DTI's reporting mechanisms on accountability.
1.27 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I begin with an apology. My noble friend Lady Miller was due to speak in the debate today. Sadly, yesterday afternoon, her husband fell and broke his hip. He had to undergo an operation this morning, which is why my noble friend cannot be present. She asked me to present her apologies to the House for her non-appearance.
I declare an interest, albeit historical: for a number of years I was a member of the West Midlands Industrial Development Board. In that role, I considered, and was involved with, applications for regional selective assistance and other grants.
As the Minister explained, the Bill has its origins in the Industry Act 1972, introduced by the then Conservative government. That Act was substantially modernised by the Industrial Development Act 1982, which was also passed under a Conservative government. Both Acts had the provisions contained in the section that this Bill seeks to amend—Section 8.
Noble Lords may therefore assume that we on these Benches support the principles of the original legislation and the principles of this present Bill. However, that does not mean that we should allow it to pass without raising some important questions, to which the Government should provide answers. As Mr Speaker has certified this as a Money Bill, we in this House may not table probing or other amendments. This debate is the one opportunity for us to request clarification from the Government.
Three years ago, in a debate in the Standing Committee in another place, the Government stated that they anticipated that the funds available under the present legislation would last until 2010, and that replacement legislation, such as we are now debating, would not be needed before then. Will the Minister tell us what unexpected, unbudgeted events have occurred since then that have resulted in this legislation being brought forward by no fewer than seven years?
The main purposes for which funds may be provided pursuant to Section 7 of the 1982 Act are, in general terms,
"to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of the assisted areas".
Subsection (2) more closely defines, in six paragraphs, the way in which that is to be achieved. Four of those paragraphs refer to such positive matters as the promotion of development and modernisation; the promotion of efficiency; the creation, expansion or sustaining of productive capacity; and the encouragement of growth.
In contrast to those positive objectives, there are two paragraphs that provide for assistance in promoting the reconstruction or reorganisation of industry—subsection (2)(d)—and ensuring that the contraction of an industry proceeds in an orderly way. Some of the funds were used to prevent the premature closure of
836
viable coalmines, which certainly seems to be within the ambit of the Act. However, Ministers here and in another place have explained that funds have been used to support redundancy payments arising out of the closure of the Selby coal complex and the disastrous flooding of the Longannet colliery. However laudable those two objectives were and however much they fell strictly within the wording of Section 8, subsections (2)(d) and (2)(f) were intended for the purpose of introducing new employment into areas hit by large industrial closures. They are not for the purposes of meeting the Government's obligations under the Employment Rights Act 1996. On the other hand, the payments that the Government have made under Section 8 to redundant steelworkers through the iron and steelworkers re-adaptation benefits scheme seem to comply with the purposes of the Act.
This morning, the Minister, like his colleague in another place, explained that Section 8 funds had been used for the urban post office re-organisation. The Minister's colleague said that it was done,
"to enable the Post Office to carry out its programme to restructure the urban post office network, and to ensure that sub-postmasters whose offices close are adequately compensated for the loss of the value of their business and that those who remain can benefit from investment grants".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/03; col. 51.]
My noble friends Lady Miller of Hendon and Lady Byford and many others have campaigned in the House for support for urban and rural post offices. However, I must ask by what stretch of interpretation post offices can be described as an industry. Despite the fact that the Government's compensation proposals were, apparently, discussed in another place on 15th October 2002, the funds that the Government promised to provide are not new money. They are money taken by the Treasury from the funds that are supposed to be used for the purposes of the 1982 Act—namely, to maintain employment in assisted areas. If that is true, it is a classic piece of government double counting, perpetrated by experts in creative bookkeeping.
The use of money earmarked for the purposes of the Act to meet the Government's other obligations is not appropriate. The Minister should tell us in detail what the Government have spent so much money on in the past three years that it has resulted in their having to come back to Parliament for more money seven years earlier than previously predicted. I appreciate that the Government have presided over an unprecedented decline in our industrial base, but the money provided under the Act is intended to establish new jobs and opportunities and not to enable the Treasury to evade its obligations under other Acts, or to fulfil high-blown promises by using the usual government smoke and mirrors.
Several requests for greater transparency and more information about the operation of the 1982 Act were made during the debates at all three stages of the Bill's passage. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has already raised that issue. Although it is possible to find accounts of different schemes on the DTI website, it would be helpful if comprehensive interim written

837
reports were published at intervals. As the DTI has a continuous data-gathering operation, will the Minister offer to see that that is done and is made available to interested parties, especially those in Parliament?
We are talking about large sums—an immediate increase to the ceiling of £1 billion and provision for subsequent increases totalling £2.4 billion. When I sat on the West Midlands Industrial Development Board, I became concerned at the activities of professional grant-getters; that is, firms, or individuals, who offered grant-getting help for a fee that was usually linked to success. They knew how to present cases, how to hit the hot buttons—to use modern parlance—and how to achieve a good outcome for their clients.
My worries then and now are twofold. First, there is the issue of what is known as "additionality". Is the grant critical to the proposal going ahead or, in the last resort, would it proceed in any case? If the latter is the case, taxpayers' money is not being used to best effect. My second worry is about what is called "cross-competition". Grants that are obtained can adversely affect the operations of other perfectly competent, well-run competing firms that have not gone cap-in-hand to the Government. In his response, will the Minister reassure me and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, about the analysis that the Government have done of the impact of those important topics?
We also need an answer to the question of the extent to which the Government's operation of the Act is controlled by the European Commission. At Second Reading in another place, the Minister told the House that,
"The Government are in negotiation with the European Commission over our intention to use Section 8 to support redundancy payments arising from the closure of UK Coal's Selby complex".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/03; col. 51.]
I have already referred to the inappropriateness of using the funds available under the Act for the purpose of meeting the Government's obligations under other legislation with regard to the payment of redundancy money, as distinct from the laudable objective of introducing new employment opportunities in areas affected by large-scale industrial closures. What is the current role of Brussels as regards this country's policies for compensating workers who have lost their job?
In parallel with that issue, there is also the fact, as I remember from my experience in the West Midlands, that international competition used to develop between governments to attract new industries. Too often, it seemed from our worm's eye view in Birmingham that the UK played scrupulously by the rules. Other countries appeared to be less fastidious. Whatever provisions are laid down in Brussels, is the Minister satisfied that they are fairly and evenly enforced throughout the European Union?
At Second Reading in another place, Mr Henry Bellingham, the honourable Member for North West Norfolk, asked the Minister to consider the removal of some of the sector restrictions, including vehicle
838
repairs and servicing and retailing. I accept that they are on the borderline of the definition of "industry", but no more so than urban post offices, for which the Government took funds from the resources for this Act. Many of those made redundant in a major closure must resort to that sort of trade, as there is no other way for them to make a living. Even the Government's Small Business Service, which provides funds under the Act, is unable to help such businesses.
Under the Act, the turnover limit is £5 million. That figure has remained unchanged for some time. My honourable friend Mr Bellingham suggested that it was now too restrictive, but the Minister did not respond. Now that the Government have had a couple of months to think about the matter, will the Minister give us a more a considered reaction? My honourable friend also asked for details of the sums that have had to be written off from loans in the past four years and for the global figure that the Government have had to pay under guarantees. The Minister admitted and expressed surprise that the analysis existed but was, as he put it, "all over the place". He promised a proper analysis to the members of the Standing Committee in another place, and I assume that it was prepared and circulated. Will the Minister ensure that Members of this House who are interested in the matter receive the same courtesy?
More important for the transparency that I have called for than the bare figures for the money paid out and paid back would be some sort of periodic report on how productive the funding has proved to be overall, especially in helping small businesses. As my honourable friend the Member for Sevenoaks pointed out in an intervention at Second Reading in another place, we are progressing in one step from a commitment of £2.7 billion—the current total—to £6.1 billion. An extra £3.4 billion, even spread out over 20 years, is a lot of money. That is especially so, given that, in the last period for which we had a report, expenditure under Section 8 was £113 million. In his introductory remarks, the Minister said that that figure would rise in the current year. We look forward to hearing from the Minister what extra calls the Government expect to be made on the facility.
I ask for this information because, as I said, the Government expect the present funding to run out seven years ahead of schedule, hence the need for the Bill. I also ask because of my suspicion that the Government may be planning to use the facilities of the Bill to fund activities that should be more openly discussed elsewhere in the accounts.
As Mr Henry Bellingham pointed out, this is a small Bill, but one with a large price tag. At 92 words long, I calculate it to have a price of about £37 million per word.
For all those reasons, and the points adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, there must be a strong argument for an improved method of parliamentary scrutiny. That could take several forms, including a requirement for a specific report to be debated in both Houses when either a specified increased level of Section 8 funding was reached—say, the £600 million tranches to which the Government refer—or at

839
chronological intervals of, say, three years. That would have the effect of increasing public confidence that taxpayers' money was being used to best effect. Given all the circumstances, it was a pity that the Government could not respond more constructively to the amendments proposed on this issue in another place. When he responds, perhaps the Minister will also give us his considered reflections on that point.
Finally, and nevertheless, as originators of this concept and sponsors of the two preceding Acts, we on these Benches support the principles of the Bill and the need for some industry-specific intervention by the Government as well as for assistance in some of the regions, perhaps especially for small businesses, which are so often described as the engine of new employment opportunities.
1.42 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the detailed consideration they have given to this small but important Bill. I shall do my best to respond to the particular points made.
I start with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, who queried whether the 1982 legislation is still relevant 21 years later. The demand for assistance, particularly for small businesses, in relatively small sums to individual enterprises, is continuing and will continue in good times and in bad times. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, small and medium enterprises are in many ways the engine room of the economy. It is the case that one of the measures of the success of the economy is the extent to which small businesses start up.
There is no doubt—it has never been questioned—that small businesses have benefited from the programmes which have been operated by the Department of Trade and Industry. It is true that there have been far too many of these programmes; the fact that there are more than 100 of them is confusing for businesses and for government. We recognise that, and that is why the Secretary of State has conducted a review and is proposing to reduce the number of schemes from more than 100 to more like 20 or 25. The ones that are included in Section 8 provision are undoubtedly important parts of the schemes that will survive the review.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, asked me whether the small firms loan guarantee scheme was necessary after the Cruickshank report and after the Government are able to implement that report. The recommendations of the Cruickshank report are, of course, only partly to the Government; they are also to the venture capital industry. It is not within the Government's powers to control these matters. We do our best to help, but we cannot actually say what venture capital will do. The latest report of the British Venture Capital Association shows that only 3 per cent of total private equity investment was invested at the start-up stage in 2001 and only 8 per cent in early-stage investments, whereas MBOs and MBIs accounted for 60 per cent of investment. There is not much change there. I suggest that it is a good justification for continuation of the small firms loan guarantee scheme.
840
The noble Lord asked me about accountability. The extent to which the House of Commons considers the reports that are made is a matter for the House of Commons. There is an annual report under the 1982 Act. It is capable of being debated by the House of Commons, and if they wish to do it no doubt they will do so. If the Liberal Democrat or Conservative Opposition feel like doing so, I have no doubt that they will demand government time or provide time of their own. But that is not a matter for me.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked why the money which three years ago we thought would last until 2010 will now last only until 2004. The answer is that there have been worthwhile schemes under Section 8 which do seem to be justified. With one or two exceptions, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, accepts that the schemes that we have been funding come under the proper purposes of the 1982 Act—the purposes in Section 7(2), and including those in (2)(d) and (2)(f).
The noble Lord's two queries are, first, about coal redundancy payments—although I noticed not about steel redundancy payments—and about the use for post offices, which he describes as not being "industry". On the question of redundancy payments, the European Commission has agreed that redundancy payments are proper uses of industrial development funding. It is, after all, in the interest not only of those who are made redundant, in the way in which the coal industry and the steel industry have been making people redundant, that they are compensated, but in the interest of the communities in which they live. It also increases the chance that replacement employment opportunities will arise.
The noble Lord talked about a stretch of interpretation to count post offices as industry. When I started a market research company, in 1965, I called it Industrial Facts and Forecasting because the contrast which we then made was between industrial and consumer market research. It became very apparent that the real market for us in non-consumer market research was business. I suggest to him that our economy consists of manufacturing industry and service industry. To make a point about the wording as to whether something is industry or part of the effective economy is not very helpful. These are all essential parts of our economy and if there were to be service industries which fell within the remit of Section 8 I am sure that we would take those opportunities regardless of the title of the 1982 Act. It was the correct title at the time. It is not the correct title now, but the provision is still appropriate.
I understand what the noble Lord says about the work of professional grant-getters. I have seen that in action myself and it is not particularly valuable. However, I think that the review of these small business schemes that the DTI is carrying out will attack that issue as well.
The noble Lord asked me about the European policy on compensation for job loss. All uses of Section 8 which are state aids under the EC treaty require notification to meet our obligations under the treaties. We require that

841
support for Selby, which is one of those that he questions, and that is why we have notified it to the European Commission. We do scrutinise possible cases of noncompliance by other member states which are publicised, and we have been known to intervene in the European Court of Justice if we think that there are cases of intervention. We believe that if we are to obey the rules, other people should keep to the rules themselves.
The noble Lord asked me whether the measure we are discussing constituted new money. Each government department or devolved administration funds its Section 8 schemes out of its own budget in the context of the overall priorities of each department. Section 8 is not a budget; it is an enabling power. All the money has to come out of DTI budgets and those are determined by the spending review.
I believe that I have responded to the point made about the reports. I do not believe that a comprehensive evaluation of such a wide variety of schemes would be possible but there have been evaluations of individual schemes. For example, the small firms loan guarantee scheme was evaluated by KPMG. The small business services schemes are also subject to evaluation. In any case, the business support review which I have already described is in itself a form of evaluation. I am strongly in favour of evaluation. I am very sympathetic to what both noble Lords have said but I do not believe that a cross-cutting evaluation of such a wide variety of schemes would be appropriate.
I shall ensure that both noble Lords have a copy of the analysis which was given to the Standing Committee in another place. I do not think that I can say what extra calls will be made in the future on Section 8. Clearly, those are matters which arise from time to time. For example, one does not have notice of flooding at Longannet. If I can tell the noble Lord anything further about the future, I shall certainly do so. However, at present I rest my case on the position that, broadly, the schemes that have been funded and continue to be funded are worthwhile. There is no other way of funding them. The proposals to extend the scheme are rational and legitimate and provide such accountability to Parliament as the House of Commons wishes. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

Business of the House: Extradition Bill
1.52 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Second Reading of the Extradition Bill be postponed until after Starred Questions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.53 to 3 p.m.]

Credit Rating Agencies
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any further progress has been made in preventing the practice of credit rating agencies releasing personal financial information about an individual to family members and others thought to have a financial connection with that individual: and what steps have been taken to ensure that individuals are not denied credit because of inaccurate or inadequate information supplied by such agencies.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Information Commissioner, who operates independently of the Government, announced on 28th April that he is now looking to establish a firm date for full implementation across the whole of the credit industry, including the credit reference agencies, of the new procedures to restrict disclosure of such third party information. The Data Protection Act requires information to be both accurate and adequate and the commissioner can take enforcement action if it is not.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is it not a disgrace that five years after the enactment of the Data Protection Act, and a year after I first raised the question with the Minister, the credit rating agencies are not complying with the legislation? Does the Minister accept that we must have a deadline? She mentioned that the commissioner proposes to have one. In fact, the Minister failed to mention the date to which she referred last May. What is the deadline now?
As to the second part of the Question, the Minister said that the information must be both accurate and adequate. Is it not the case that while people can complain about the inaccuracy of data—and certainly many people have done so—they are not able to insist that the credit rating agency adds to the information it holds, with the result that some people, either very rich or very prudent, are not able to get a credit rating, which is particularly important if they wish to open a bank account?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the passion with which the noble Lord makes his comments in relation to his description of the credit rating agencies' approach. I said on the previous occasion that this matter is very much within the province of the commissioner. As the noble Lord

843
knows, the commissioner is now Richard Thomas. He has a duty to look at this issue. He has now issued a press release suggesting that compliance should take place across the whole sector not later than the end of 2004. He has not given a date but he has certainly said that. I remind the noble Lord that it is not only the agencies which have to become compliant. Other entities have to get their systems in place to enable them to produce the necessary information.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, is not the Minister concerned that people are losing their jobs, or not being taken on, simply because they are unable to open a bank account? Is not the Minister concerned that certain credit facilities require extra information to be taken into account? The small print of a credit agreement may state,
"Information about you and other members of your household and those with whom you are financially linked, will be used to verify your identity for credit assessment of you and them",
even though they are not applying for credit facilities. Surely that is totally unsatisfactory.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there are concerns in this area but the noble Baroness will know that it is for lenders to decide whether to grant credit based on their own commercial judgment, including an assessment of the risks involved in any case. I can understand that there are difficulties. The noble Baroness will know also that, historically, both the previous commissioner and the current one have looked at the matter very robustly. The commissioner's role is not only to enforce but to persuade and encourage improvement in services, and both the previous commissioner and the present one have undertaken to do so.
Lord Newby: My Lords, many on all sides of the House will be concerned about the Minister's previous answer. If people find themselves denied credit, it may not be literally a life or death matter but it will have a very serious impact on their ability to conduct their daily lives. I find extremely worrying the apparent lack of urgency with which the matter is being pursued and the long deadline which has been imposed. Will the Minister look at the issue again and encourage the Information Commissioner to consider whether the deadline to which she referred might be brought forward somewhat?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, let me say two things in response to the noble Lord's question. First, the Information Commissioner has not set a deadline of the end of 2004; he has said that it should be no later than that. At the moment he is actively considering when the fixed date should be, but he has alerted the industry that the very latest point will be that date. I make that plain straightaway. Secondly, noble Lords will know that under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act it is possible for individuals to obtain a copy of the information held about them by a credit
844
reference agency for a fee of £2. If they find that their credit file contains information about people in their family with whom they have no financial connection, they can write to the agency to dissociate themselves from them. Further information about this is given in the leaflet "No Credit?", which is available, free of charge, from the Information Commissioner's office. So individuals can take action to correct the information held on file about them.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the individual can ask for the information to be corrected but cannot add to it if it is totally inadequate. The Minister has not answered the second part of the Question at all. Will she now do so?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, an individual is entitled to have an entry amended or information in the entry expunged. I understand that it is possible to request that a note be kept on the file. I emphasise that this is not within the Government's gift. The matter is being dealt with, quite properly, by the Information Commissioner, as is his right and duty.

Government Debt Accounts
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Comptroller and Auditor General has approved the accounting treatment of debt in the government accounts.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. In his general report for 2001–02, the Comptroller and Auditor General noted that he had been able to give a unqualified audit opinion on the Government's debt accounts—that is, the National Loans Fund and the debt management account.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am still concerned about the issue of disclosure of contingent liabilities. Why are they still not listed following the recommendation of the House of Commons Treasury Committee which stated:
"in the interest of greater transparency, that the existence of all contingent liabilities be stated in the Red Book"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I return to the view of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which is what the Question is about. The Comptroller and Auditor General said in his general report for 2001–02, in relation to financial auditing and reporting, that he has not yet had to qualify his audit opinion on departmental resource accounts as he would do so only should departments fail to reflect correctly in their financial statements liabilities resulting from financing arrangements under PFI deals. The answer is the same whether it refers to off or on balance sheet or to debt accounts.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the decision by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask the National Audit Office to report on the fiscal assumptions within the Budget was a major step towards openness? It is difficult to envisage any financial judgment which would carry any more weight and distinction than that of Sir John Bourn, who, during his 15 years as the Comptroller and Auditor General, has been an outstanding holder of that office.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, is the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, fully content with the Government's decision to take the over £20 billion worth of Network Rail borrowing off the Government's balance sheet?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. Sir John Bourn has said that the Network Rail obligations should be in the accounts of the Strategic Rail Authority, and they are. If he does not know already, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, may be interested to learn that from 2003–04 we are introducing whole-of-government accounts. Those whole-of-government accounts will consolidate the accounts not only of central government, but also of executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies, including the Strategic Rail Authority.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the full potential impact of the Government's contingent liabilities can be understood only if a proper risk assessment of the guarantees given by the Government is undertaken? Does he further agree that the appropriate body to undertake such a risk assessment might he the National Audit Office?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, but in the first instance the evidence has to be available. That evidence is available in the supplementary statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund accounts which I am holding in my hand. Table B.14 of those accounts, which are published every year, sets out all the departmental contingent liabilities, including an assessment of the risk. Perhaps I may add that in the whole-of-government accounts, in line with Financial Reporting Standard 12, we shall report all contingent liabilities which fall within the definitions of United Kingdom generally accepted accounting practices. Furthermore, we shall also be reporting on more remote liabilities.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, perhaps I may help the Minister to understand why my noble friends persist in asking him such uncomfortable questions about the Government's accounting treatment for debt. Can I take him back to 10th December last when, in response to a question not dissimilar to that tabled today by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, he said that our suggestions were. "wholly unfounded"? He has also said that,
"in the Red Book … all contingent liabilities over £100,000 are declared".—[Official Report, 27/11/02; col. 781.]
846
We persisted and on 16th December the Minister underlined that answer by saying,
"in case there is any misunderstanding, the aggregate of contingent liabilities is contained in the Red Book".—[Official Report, 16/12/02; col. 451.]
On 18th December we visited the subject again. On that occasion the noble Lord wrote to me to say that his previous answer had been "mistaken", and that in fact the figures are not contained in the Red Book and are included only in the largely unknown document to which he has referred.
Does that help the Minister to understand why, when he responds to questions in this way, my noble friends do not automatically accept that his answers are as clear-cut as he might like?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, any discomfort is in the minds of the Opposition, not in my mind. The difference between the Red Book—which is constantly criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for being too long and complicated—and the supplementary statements, which are published just as freely as the Red Book, is nothing like as significant as the failure of the Opposition to justify and give details of its constant asseveration—it is no more than that—that there is a £100 billion hole in the Government's accounts. When the Opposition can come forward with some justification for that, which can be answered as I responded to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on 10th December, I will be a happy man.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is it not worth making the point that, whatever the numbers may be, overall the debt position of the Government is very sound indeed? It is far better than the position that we inherited.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. Not only is the position sound, but it is sound in a way that the debt position of the previous government was not. There has been a very significant reduction in public sector debt during the period of this Government.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many private sector companies involved in PFI transactions record them as financial transactions; that is, as loans to the Government? Can the Minister therefore explain why the Government persist in asserting that the substance of these transactions is not loans to the Government in the Government accounts?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not responsible for what private sector companies put in their accounts. Almost uniquely among developed countries, the Government adhere to generally accepted accounting practice in the presentation of their own accounts. I should have thought that, of all people, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would appreciate the value of that.

Teacher Recruitment
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours Lord Campbell-Savours asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration is being given to a national online teacher recruitment service run on a nonprofit making, self-funding basis; and what potential savings would arise for the taxpayer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Government do not recruit or employ teachers directly, but are interested in any measures which increase efficiency in the system. We are aware of some existing online recruitment activities. We will continue to maintain an interest in the market with a view to promoting measures which provide schools with good value for money. Meanwhile there is considerable government investment supporting the recent significant improvements in overall teacher supply, which should lead to efficiencies in advertising generally.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not true that the Times Educational Supplement and other recruitment agencies are now picking up something in the order of £60 million per year to provide a service which could be offered online at a fraction of that cost, at perhaps £2 million or £3 million per year? Could we not save a good deal of money by promoting that approach?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, various estimates have been made of how much money is spent by schools on recruitment advertising, but of course we do not collect those figures centrally. That would place an inappropriate burden on schools. So I cannot comment on the figures cited by my noble friend with regard to the Times Educational Supplement. What I can say on behalf of the Government is that we want to stimulate and support what is a market in enabling schools to choose what works best for them.
Noble Lords will be aware that the basis of teacher recruitment is often regional rather than national, that it is still very much paper-based within classrooms and staffrooms and so forth, and that often it is led by local education authorities providing interesting work to support their schools. We want to support and promote all those different methods.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of an academic website that is extremely successful and on which almost all universities rely for advertising jobs? It certainly attracts a much wider range of applicants both from this country and from Europe than do most newspaper advertisements. Is she further aware that it would be very much easier for schools to recruit good quality applicants if they were free to advertise jobs at salaries which suited the cost of living in their geographical area rather than being tied to national scales?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, turning to the second point, the noble Baroness will know that we
848
have done a good deal of work to ensure that schools do have flexibility within the offers that they wish to make to applicants. Those offers recognise experience and other features and factors within schools. I do not think that we are tied in the way that perhaps the question suggests.
I am aware of the academic website to which the noble Baroness referred. It is an extremely good and powerful medium. Hence the Government are looking across the market to ensure that we are able to support what is an emerging and flourishing market offering different alternatives for schools based, as I have said, on a regional understanding of what schools are looking for.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be dangerous to become too dependent on online recruitment? Many people, such as, for example, returning teachers who have been away for some time, may not have access to the Internet on a regular basis. The one computer in the family may be dominated by the children. We should not be drawn too deeply into the notion that the Internet is the answer to everything, or at least not in the short term.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As I said in my earlier response, we recognise that many teachers search the newspapers, whether it be the Times Educational Supplement, local and regional newspapers or other national papers, to meet their recruitment needs. Noble Lords who have served as school governors will know that it is important to consider a variety of mechanisms when seeking to recruit. That was certainly my experience.
As I have pointed out before, local education authorities often provide support by producing newsletters that are sent out across the education authority, because much recruitment is local.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, in the spirit of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the biggest wastes of money in the public sector at present is the endless production of colourful publications, many of them circulated to noble Lords, Members of Parliament and public bodies? Very few of them are read. Would it not be a good idea—I understand from the Printed Paper Office that one or two organisations are doing this now—if the publications were available online, and could be printed off if people actually wanted to read them? It has been a huge area of increasing government expenditure, and a very considerable waste.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was not expecting to deal with quite that aspect of policy, otherwise I would have had with me the figures on the number of publications that we produce and how many are online. Everything that the Department for Education and Skills produces is available online. We encourage schools to use that service and to print off publications, or whatever parts of them they want to

849
print off; as noble Lords will know, teachers often look for certain parts of documents. I am proud of the quality of the publications that we produce, because they are accessible. That they are colourful is a good thing.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, although the Minister may say that the subject is a little wide of the mark, the Question refers to potential savings for the taxpayer. Might I therefore raise the whole question of retention of school teachers, which is nearly more important than recruiting new teachers? The biggest waste that we have is that, unfortunately, teachers become disillusioned and leave, so we are always catching up. It seems such a crying shame that we do not spend as much effort on retaining teachers as we do on seeking their replacements.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a very important point about retention. As noble Lords will know, the Government place great store on that. It is why I am very pleased that the figures just released show the number of vacancies for teacher posts to have gone down from 1.4 per cent last year to 1.2 per cent in 2003. That means that the figure is 1,940. I am pleased that we are seeing that decrease across the range of different subjects, many of which noble Lords have raised before in this House. That therefore means that not only are we recruiting well, but we are retaining teachers.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, in order to increase retention of staff, how is the Minister improving the level of consultation with schools? For instance, there is a school in Lambeth that uses a child psychotherapist to come in and support the staff on a regular basis. That is very helpful, given that we know that some schools have more and more troubled children in their ranks. There is some rearrangement in the administration of the special schools, which have special skills. How are they being used to provide extra support for mainstream schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that question is probably wide of the mark. However, I shall make a couple of comments, because I know that the noble Earl takes the subject extremely seriously and I am pleased to be in dialogue with him on such questions. At the moment, I am looking very closely at the relationship between our special schools, which have great expertise to share, and what we shall call for the moment mainstream schools. We need to ensure that assistance is available to teachers to enable them to support the children in their schools, some of whom have complex needs.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, in so far as a strong lobby is developing in favour of setting up a national single online system, which would cost so little and be run on a non-profit-making basis, would
850
Ministers be prepared to consult people in the education profession about the potential of that for the future and the savings that might arise?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not aware of a national lobby. I am aware that we have had some interest from individuals who have talked with officials, and officials have assured me that they will shortly give advice to Ministers on how we might better involve ourselves in the whole question of advertising. However, we are some way from saying that there is a strong lobby. At the moment I am convinced that, as a government, we need to be clear about our role and responsibility, which is to make sure that schools are able to access different opportunities to recruit and retain staff.

Iraq: Trade in Antiquities
3.24 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What their policy is concerning the removal of international sanctions from the trade in antiquities from Iraq.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, United Nations Security Council resolutions make it illegal to export anything from Iraq except under the Oil for Food programme. Therefore, it is illegal to export antiques from Iraq. Negotiations are under way in the Security Council to lift sanctions against Iraq. We will be discussing with other Security Council members how best to protect Iraq's cultural assets in the circumstances.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which will be helpful. However, any ban on the export of antiquities does not solve the problem that many of the antiquities were looted in the first place, as was expressed most movingly by Mr Donny George at the British Museum earlier in the week. Will the Minister say what efforts the coalition forces are taking to stop the ongoing looting? It is not taking place at the Baghdad museum but outside Baghdad, especially on archaeological sites. There is no confirmation because no one is there at the moment, but we believe that such sites are suffering from gangs looting the artefacts to sell on the international market.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the problem is very serious, and we all join in the real regret expressed at the meeting held on 29th April under the auspices of the British Museum about the looting that has taken place. The noble Lord may know that the MoD consulted the archaeological community widely before the conflict started. Newcastle University and University College, London, provided lists of sites of key cultural and historical interest in Iraq. The troops were briefed accordingly to avoid those sites during the conflict.

851
In the area dominated by American troops, there is now some security around the Baghdad and Mosul museums. As I understand it, there was a limited amount of looting in Basra, where we have said that we will have an amnesty for those wishing and able to return looted objects. The issue goes wider than that. I am sure that other noble Lords will ask me questions relating to other matters that we are putting in hand to try to recover some of the looted articles.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords—
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, for a second time now, priceless antiques from the Iraqi museums have been looted and possibly sold, some even to order. We on these Benches fully support UN Security Council Resolution 661 and all the laws that prohibit the trading of such looted antiques. However, in the present climate, does the Minister feel that either keeping or lifting sanctions on the exporting of valuable antiques from Iraq is the most efficient method to stop the illicit trade? In the light of this, will the Government now give official support to the Bill of my noble friend Lord Renfrew—it is currently in another place—which would deal with the problem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the lifting of sanctions is very important in taking forward the future of oil for the Iraqi people. However, as I hope that I made clear in my initial Answer, we would wish to do so only in such a way as was consistent in protecting Iraq's cultural assets in the circumstances. Basically, we are talking about many goods and cultural artefacts that have been stolen. Trade in those artefacts would of course be entirely wrong.
The noble Baroness referred to a Bill that had its Second Reading in another place on 4th April. As I understand it, there is wide cross-party support for that Bill, and the Government will support it.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that we would like to hear from my noble friend Lord Strabolgi.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that advance warning was given that the Baghdad museum was at risk? Was there any advance plan to protect the museum once Baghdad had been liberated?
Baroness Symons of VernhamDean: My Lords, I am aware of the advance warnings—the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised them with me on Monday—about not only the Baghdad museum, but also a number of very important cultural sites. As I have indicated, we did our best to ensure that our troops knew where those cultural sites were. However, while the majority of the looting was taking place, the situation in Iraq remained extremely unstable. Therefore, it was too dangerous for troops to
852
undertake static guarding of specific sites, as I hope that I explained to noble Lords when I answered points on the subject on Monday. Such activity was deemed too dangerous, until the security situation allowed for it. It does now, and that activity is being undertaken.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, in view of the fact that the greatest destruction and looting appears to have taken place in areas for which the coalition partners and the United States have had responsibility, in what dialogue are the Government engaged with the American authorities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, my noble friend from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Lady Blackstone, discussed these matters during her recent visit to Washington. I hope that the noble Lord will also be pleased to learn that at the meeting held on 29th April representatives from many of the institutions with interests in these cultural artefacts came over from the United States. I understand that the J Paul Getty Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and, I believe, the State Museum of Pennsylvania were all represented on that occasion. We are working, together with UNESCO, to try to find a way forward.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at the British Museum meeting this Tuesday a list of the items stolen from the Iraq Museum was produced and that there can now be no question but that any trader knowingly selling anything on the list will be blatantly selling an item that is known to be stolen? It is now very clear that the main objects on the list of stolen items are on all the websites around the world.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am, indeed, aware that such a list was produced because my noble friend was kind enough to furnish me with a copy before we entered the Chamber today. However, I should point out to your Lordships that, at the beginning of the month, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the DCMS wrote to the British Art Market Federation and the Antiquities Dealers Association to ask for their assistance in locating and identifying looted material, should it arrive in the United Kingdom. She has also written to John Healey, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, asking him to ensure that Customs officers are alerted at all ports of entry into the United Kingdom so that they, too, are aware of the particular goods that are of very great concern. I know that there are very many, but this list will also be conveyed to them.

Extradition Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

853
It gives me great pleasure to bring forward a worthwhile and necessary Bill which will modernise and improve our extradition arrangements. I hope that none of your Lordships will seek to defend our present extradition system. Under that system, fugitives are able to raise one legal challenge after another, often on the very same point, as a means of delaying and frustrating the extradition process. As a result, it takes, on average, 18 months in a contested case to extradite someone from Britain, and certain notorious cases have gone on for five years or more.
Perhaps I may give a real life, if anonymous, example. Mr R was wanted by the French for trafficking in cannabis. It was alleged that he had assisted his father in importing some 531 kilograms of cannabis resin, worth approximately £1.3 million, into the United Kingdom. He was arrested in the UK in November 1995. He appealed against his extradition no less than five times and attempted to delay his extradition on health grounds just before his actual surrender. Mr R was finally extradited to France in September 2001—nearly six years after his arrest—and was sentenced in November 2001 to four years' imprisonment and fined 45,000 euros. The costs of detention alone in this case exceeded £120,000, while we estimate that the court and legal costs were in excess of £30,000.
Delays of that kind do enormous harm to justice. They cost the British taxpayer large amounts of money in court costs, legal aid fees and prison costs. They harm our international standing, as we have the unwelcome reputation of having the most cumbersome and convoluted extradition procedures. And, most of all, they harm the interests of the victims of crime and of justice generally. The old maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" applies every bit as much to extradition as to any other part of the criminal justice system.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the history of the Bill. The Government first announced their intention to review our extradition laws in 1999 and a consultation paper was published in March 2001. The House will note that that was a full six months before 11th September 2001. After those terrible events, the European Union accelerated its negotiations on the European arrest warrant. It is worth noting that many of the features of the European arrest warrant are modelled on what appeared in the UK's consultation paper of March 2001.
The framework decision on the European arrest warrant was agreed on 13th June 2002. Again, that was after the framework decision had properly cleared scrutiny in both your Lordships' House and another place in the approved way. We published the draft Bill for consultation in June 2002. We are very grateful to all those who took the trouble to respond and comment on it. We amended the Bill before it was introduced to take account of many of those comments. We also made significant amendments to the Bill at Report stage in another place to take account of points that had been raised earlier during its passage. Therefore, I hope that no one will accuse us of a lack of openness or of failing to listen.
854
With that preamble, I turn to the specific measures in the Bill. Part 1 is concerned with our extradition relations with other EU countries and gives effect to the European arrest warrant. It may be helpful if I describe the procedures that will operate and, in doing so, try to set at rest some of the anxieties or alarms that have been expressed.
European arrest warrants will generally be transmitted using the Schengen Information System. This is a secure computer system, so we can be sure that the request has come from a bona fide source. Once requests have been received, the UK's designated authority, which will be NCIS or the Crown Office in Scotland, will check that they contain all the necessary information, such as details of the offence, when it was committed and the punishment that may be imposed in respect of it.
The warrant will also have to be accompanied by a statement that, in accusation cases—cases where the person has not been convicted—the warrant has been issued for the purpose of putting the person on trial. That is important because there have been suggestions that EAWs—I shall use that shorthand form—will be used to bring people back for interrogation or evidence-gathering. In fact, the reverse is true. Our current legislation simply requires a person to be "accused of" of a crime. The Bill, for the first time, makes it clear that extradition to another EU country will be possible only for the purpose of putting a person on trial.
Similarly, in conviction cases—cases where the person has already been convicted—there must be a statement that the person is wanted so that he can serve the prison sentence which the court has imposed. Once the extradition request has been certified by the UK authority, the person can be arrested.
In another place, we took the opportunity to amend the Bill to put beyond doubt what had always been our intention—that such arrests can be carried out only by UK law enforcement personnel. That gives the lie to accusations that foreign police officers will be entering our country and knocking on doors to seek arrests. That is not the case.
Once the person has been arrested, he must be brought as soon as practicable before a UK judge, who will decide both whether the person before him is the person whose extradition has been sought—if it is not the right person, he will be released—and whether he should be granted bail or remanded in custody. On that point, it is worth noting that, for the first time, the Bill creates a presumption in favour of bail in extradition cases.
The initial hearing is followed shortly by the main extradition hearing—again, before a UK judge, who is required to consider whether any of the statutory bars to extradition apply. Again, I am at a loss to know how those who have claimed that under an EAW the extradition process takes place with no legal proceedings in this country can support their argument.
The bars to extradition cover matters such as double jeopardy, age and specialty protection—that is, the rule that a person can be tried only for the crime for

855
which he is extradited. I want to draw particular attention to three further safeguards. First, extradition is barred if the extradition request has been made for the purpose of punishing or prosecuting the person on the grounds of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions. I hasten to add that we would certainly not expect those factors to apply in respect of a request from another EU country, but it is there as an additional safeguard and was included at the explicit request of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Secondly, no one can be extradited if extradition would breach their ECHR rights. That is made explicit on the face of the Bill and is an important safeguard. Thirdly, no one can be extradited if their mental or physical condition would make extradition unjust or oppressive.
One thing that the court will not be required to do is to examine the case against the person. I would not expect there to be any complaints about that from the Official Opposition since it was in 1991 that the UK removed the requirement to provide prima facie evidence from EU countries and, indeed, from all Council of Europe countries. I am not aware of there having been any significant accusations that that has led to major problems of process.
Following the hearing, there is a right of appeal to the High Court, and cases where important points of law have been raised can go to the House of Lords. That adds up to a significant package of safeguards.
I think I should say something about the issue of dual criminality, since I am sure we will have many discussions on that in Committee. First, the Bill makes it perfectly clear that the partial removal of dual criminality applies only in cases where the conduct occurs in the requesting state. Where the conduct in question occurs outside the requesting state, the dual criminality rule applies. So no one will be extradited for conduct which occurs here in the UK and is not contrary to UK law. Suggestions that people will be extradited for writing a Sun editorial or reading a "Biggles" book might be exciting but simply are not true.
However, if a person goes to another EU country and breaks its law while there, he should expect to face justice. The fact that the UK happens not to have an exact equivalent offence should not excuse him. If a person breaks the law while in France and is arrested there and then, no one would think that unreasonable. There is no reason why such a person should be able to avoid justice simply because he has been able to cross the border before the police can reach him. The reverse side of that is that if a French person comes here, we expect him to obey our law. We would not accept the excuse that the conduct in question happened not be against the law in France. That has to cut both ways.
So the Bill removes the dual criminality requirement for offences which fall within the 32 generic offence categories. This, again, is a point I need to stress. The list of 32 comprises offence categories, not individual offences. So while it is true, as has been commented on repeatedly, that the UK has no specific offence of racism and xenophobia, we have plenty of offences
856
which fall within that category; for example, incitement to racial hatred and all the other offences created by our important race relations legislation.
Therefore, very real benefits flow to the UK from the partial abolition of dual criminality. Not every EU country has an offence of incitement to racial hatred. Not every EU country has an offence of fraudulent trading. As long as we retain an absolute dual criminality rule, people can come to the UK and commit these serious offences with impunity provided they can cross the frontier quickly without being apprehended. That is not justice.
As I am on the subject of the benefits of the European arrest warrant, it may be helpful if I set out more of them. The most obvious is speed: we estimate that a normal EAW case in this country will take about three months, whereas the average contested case is 18 months. But this, too, works both ways. Other EU countries will be obliged to return those accused of crimes in Britain more quickly.
Noble Lords may have seen the recent press reports about the case of Trevor Masters. Mr Masters fled from Britain during the course of his trial. He was subsequently convicted of indecent assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and rape. We made a request to France for his return to serve the 12-year sentence which the court had imposed. We might have thought this is a very straightforward case as the person had already been convicted of very serious offences. In fact, it took us two years to get him back. We can only imagine the added anguish that was caused to his victims during this period. In future, thanks to the EAW, France, too, will be seeking to ensure that all cases take no more than three months.
There are other benefits to the UK flowing from the European arrest warrant. Some EU countries—for example, France, Germany, Denmark and Greece—have traditionally refused to extradite their own nationals, much to the UK's frustration. In some cases, they will put the person on trial themselves, but, of course, they may not regard the crime with the same severity that we do. It also makes life much more difficult for victims and witnesses if they have to travel to a foreign country to seek to obtain justice for an offence that took place in our country. Again, that does not seem to me, in procedural terms, a situation that we should seek to defend. Therefore, it will far the first time be possible to try in this country people from France, Germany, Holland and other countries which have refused to extradite their nationals. I would expect the House to be strongly supportive of that change if we believe in justice for our citizens. That benefit has come to our country as a consequence of the European arrest warrant.
The UK has always believed that people should stand trial in the place where the crime was committed. That best serves the interests of justice and of those who have been wronged by the crime. By ending the ability of countries to refuse to extradite their own nationals, this Bill will help us to achieve that.

857
Some EU countries have refused to extradite for purely fiscal offences, to the intense annoyance of our responsible authorities. That has in the past allowed people who may have been guilty of major tax or Customs fraud to live with impunity on the costa del crime. In future, no EU country will be able to refuse to extradite for fiscal offences. This is a further specific benefit of the European arrest warrant and, again, I would find it hard to believe that the House did not think that an important benefit.
Some countries have refused to extradite when their statute of limitations has expired, even though we could perfectly well put the person on trial. There is a particular case of a paedophile who has escaped justice in Denmark because of this. That loophole, too, will be removed by the EAW.
Part 2 of the Bill is concerned with extradition from the UK to the rest of the world outside the EU. In many ways, the procedures are more akin to what we have at the moment with both the courts and Ministers having a role. However, the important distinction is that there will be just a single court process at which all the bars to extradition will be considered. The case will then pass to the Secretary of State to consider whether a limited range of factors which would preclude extradition apply. Any appeal which the fugitive wants to bring is heard, by the High Court, at the very end of this process and at that appeal all the decisions that have been taken up to that point can be considered. There is also a right of appeal to the House of Lords in cases where there are important points of law. This system both fully safeguards the rights of fugitives while eliminating the duplication and delay that plague the present system. We estimate that, under the Bill, a normal Part 2 case will take about six months from start to finish.
Part 3 is concerned with outgoing extradition requests; that is, the requests which the UK makes to another country for the return of someone to the UK to stand trial. Our existing extradition law is largely silent on this point as we rely on Ministers making requests under the royal prerogative. However, Ministers will have no involvement in EAW cases, so we have taken this opportunity to spell out the procedure for making outgoing requests to other EU countries.
Something similar lies behind Part 4 of the Bill which sets out the powers of the police in extradition cases. It had always been thought that the police could use the powers set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in extradition cases, but a court ruling in the case of Rottman cast doubt on that. That case is subject to further appeals so I will not say more about it. However, the Government took the view that the most sensible course was to set out definitively in statute the powers available to the police in extradition cases and that is what Part 4 does.
858
It may reassure your Lordships if I say that Part 4 is very closely modelled on the provisions of PACE and that, as with PACE, there is a requirement to produce a code of practice which must be published in draft.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has outlined why all these provisions are important and he has outlined much of the history behind the European arrest warrant. Will he confirm that it is open to this House to amend the provisions of the Bill and that it is not merely a fait accompli, however convenient it would be for the Government? Will he confirm that it is open to this House to amend the provisions of the arrest warrant?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the constitutional position is clear. On framework agreements to which the Government have been a party and have signed with other member states, there is an expectation that member states will put them into effective law in their own countries. However, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, knows, the position is that Parliament is sovereign and Parliament can do what it wishes in this respect. Clearly, if there were to be a discontinuity between our treaty obligations and our own law, that is another issue that goes further. But Parliament is sovereign.
Finally, Part 5 contains miscellaneous and general provisions. I do not believe that I need say more, although I have no doubt your Lordships will find much of interest when we reach the Committee stage.
That is a brief summary of what the Bill contains and, I hope, a brief explanation of the significant advantages it brings. Extradition is a classic balancing act. The rights and protections of those who are the subject of extradition requests must be set against the needs of society and of victims of crime to see justice done and done swiftly and effectively. Our present extradition system clearly fails to achieve that balance. In no other area of criminal law would we be prepared to tolerate a situation in which a person can frustrate the judicial process by repeatedly raising the same, often spurious, point. The six years' delay before a person comes to trial in a domestic case would be seen as outrageous. It is equally unacceptable in an extradition case.
I believe that the Bill represents a sensible way forward. It safeguards the rights of those who are subject to extradition requests while ensuring that such requests are dealt with using simplified and streamlined procedures. It will ensure that the victims of crime have a chance of seeing justice done swiftly. And far from having been foisted on us by the European Union, it is an important step towards our mutual recognition agenda, of which the UK has been one of the leading advocates. In a world where travel and movement are so cheap and easy, especially within the EU, we have to recognise that crime, particularly organised crime, is much more trans-national and we need the mechanisms to cope with that if we are to be serious about combating crime in our country and society.

859
The Government would be opposed to full-scale harmonisation of criminal justice systems across Europe as, I suspect, would most of your Lordships. That being so, the only option is mutual recognition. The Bill will modernise our extradition arrangements, large parts of which date from 1870. It will ensure that we can extradite people within a reasonable time-scale while still ensuring that those people have a right to a hearing and an appeal before the UK judiciary. This is a necessary and worthwhile measure. It will bring quicker justice and is an effective measure in the fight against serious and organised crime. I therefore have great pleasure in commending the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Filkin.)
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it is clear that we should improve our extradition procedures. We should not allow people to raise the same spurious points time and again, simply as a means of delaying the process of extradition for serious offences. So the Government are right to put reform of extradition law on the agenda, but their plan for a two-tier system is wrong.
Part 2 of the Bill is a practical and sensible way forward but Part 1 makes inroads into the civil liberties of British citizens that are both unacceptable and unnecessary. It goes too far by eroding the principle of dual criminality and removing the backstop power of the executive to make the final decision. We support measures to improve co-operation with other countries to fight crime—we always have—but we oppose the Government's proposals to harmonise our judicial processes with those of other EU states.
I was intrigued, as were other noble Lords, to receive from the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, this week a letter purporting to set out the myths and facts on the Bill. I look forward to putting to the test his assertions when we reach Committee. He states, for example, that mutual recognition of criminal justice systems within the EU is the only alternative to a harmonised criminal justice system.
The problem is that in the hands of this Government, their version of mutual recognition is not the alternative to the introduction of corpus juris. It is its friend and facilitator; that will not do. So, we shall vigorously oppose new Part 1 powers to arrest and deport British citizens for activities that are not crimes here. We shall oppose measures that compromise the presumption of innocence or undermine our right to challenge the basis on which we are arrested. The right way forward is simple—we should remove Part 1 from the Bill.
We believe that the Government should apply the Part 2 procedures to all applications for extradition. If Part 2 is applied effectively and thoroughly and is good enough for the rest of the world, including our Commonwealth colleagues, why is it so repugnant to the EU? I listened carefully to the case made—as always, persuasively and clearly by the Minister today but I am afraid that he has not persuaded me—with
860
regard to the need for the European arrest warrant above all other procedures. Listening to his mathematics of saying three months from France and six months from other countries it appears that he was arguing—we shall have a chance to examine it later—that we are sacrificing our civil liberties for the case for three-months extradition. We believe that we simply do not need the European arrest warrant and its hidden agenda of the framework list. Even the list is hidden from the face of the Bill at present.
I note that the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution recommends that the list should be included on the face of the Bill in a schedule. What is the Government's response to that? If the Government are determined to force through the arrest warrant, we believe it should be at least confined to terrorist offences only. We shall listen to the argument that the unique threat of terrorism alone could justify the extreme measures in Part 1.
If the Government are determined, as they seem to be, to turn their face against our proposals for Part 1, they should at least accept amendments we shall table which will ensure that Part 1 does what the Government claim it should do—no more and no less. As currently drafted the Bill does not deliver the safeguards the Government claim. Myth or fact, the Government still have some myths of their own.
First, as the Minister said today, the Government claim that extradition will be permissible only for the prosecution and not for the investigation of a person. But that is not what Clause 2 achieves despite the Government's best attempts at some amendments in another place. That is simply because of the way in which the inquisitorial system works within the EU.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, explained the problem behind all this in our debate on the European arrest warrant last April when he said,
"under continental procedures, the dividing line between investigation of a crime and the point at which there is enough material for a prosecution is not always easy to draw. The investigation will be under the control of an investigating magistrate—a judicial figure. It is presumably he who authorised the … warrant. That seems to me a risk that the extradition of a suspected offender will be sought in order that the investigating magistrate may complete his investigation by interrogating, or authorising the interrogation of, the suspect, rather than for the purpose of a prosecution in respect of which he already has sufficient material to start".—[Official Report, 23/4/02; col. 210.]
Secondly, the Home Office website says that a person who has been convicted in his absence is guaranteed a full retrial. At present he is not. There is no guarantee that, once returned, the person will have a full retrial, not just a review, with all that we would expect that to entail—the full rights of defence and legal representation.
Thirdly, as the Minister stated, there should be safeguards against our being prosecuted as a result of our race, religion or political views. It is a case of do we or do we not have that safeguard. We are left in limbo. What does a judge do when faced with the need to decide whether a person who is accused of a xenophobic offence should or should not be extradited when the

861
very nature of that xenophobic offence is rooted in that person's political opinions? How does the judge decide whether a person can have the protection of Clause 13(a) or should be exposed to extradition under Clause 63(2)? Which part of the Bill is paramount?
To make matters even worse, the Bill gives the Government the power to extend Part 1 procedures by "mission creep" to other countries that are currently in the Part 2 category. Part 1 could become the norm. How? Part 1 and the European arrest warrant apply initially to requests from other EU member states and Gibraltar but that could be extended to other countries by Order in Council subject only to negative procedure. That is not, we believe, sufficient parliamentary accountability.
Indeed, to make matters worse, countries can slither from one part of the Bill to another at the requirement of the Government by the same inadequate procedure. And there are no criteria on the face of the Bill stating how a country should be allocated to either Part 1 or Part 2.
The list of offences for which dual criminality has been surrendered can be extended later by agreements within the EU governments. Can the Minister confirm that no parliamentary approval at all would need to be sought for that? To cap it all, there are provisions that would permit the Government to remove from certain countries in Part 2 the prima facie requirement that does survive there at the moment.
Effectively, we could end up with Part 1 being extended little by little to other countries. I would hope and expect that the Minister will say that that is not at all their intention. If so, I welcome it and say let him prove that by supporting our amendments when we table them in Committee and beyond. We intend to ensure that there is effective and strong parliamentary scrutiny of any future extension of Part 1 procedures.
Overall, in the past the Government have said in another place and elsewhere, "Don't worry about all this because really there are no major changes of principle at all". Yes, we know that under existing extradition conventions in Europe the prima facie rule has already been surrendered for EU countries' applications. We know that an extradition offence is generally one where the minimum sentence is 12 months rather than the three years stipulated in the framework document. We have seen all that.
So why do we complain now about these safeguards and limitations being surrendered under Part 1? It is because this is a whole new ball game. The extent and effect of the European arrest warrant combined with the loss of dual criminality for a list that includes vague and ill-defined offences such as xenophobia and computer-related crime, combined with the loss of executive authority and unprecedented trust being placed in jurisdictions across Europe and possibly beyond make this a new procedure requiring at the very least very strong safeguards.
862
The crux of the matter is indeed how far we have confidence in the judicial process and police systems of other countries which will be party to the reciprocal agreements enshrined in Part 1. Liberty pointed out in its helpful briefing to this House that,
"the Eurowarrant is based on the presumption that EU countries all have fair and equal systems of justice which should remove the need for any other country to scrutinise the fairness of extradition to such a country. This presumption is seriously open to question".
I agree with it. Are we so confident of the systems of all countries that we can jettison so comprehensively the traditional safeguards? I think not.
As the Bill progresses, we shall take a constructive and determined approach in our amendments. We shall need to hear from the Government what is in the new UK/US and EU/US treaties on extradition and how they will impact on the provisions of this Bill. At present, those provisions are hidden from this House. We hope that the Government make sure that they are revealed.
For a variety of reasons another place scrutinised only 25 per cent of the Bill. Scotland received spectacularly short shrift. With the assistance of my noble friend Lady Carnegy I am sure that we shall do better here. My noble friend regrets that she is unable to participate today but, as one would anticipate, she is in Scotland engaging in the Scottish parliamentary elections. I thank the Minister for setting up a meeting with both my noble friend and myself to discuss the operation of this Bill in Scotland. That is very helpful and I welcome it.
We believe that it is in the interests of the public here and across the EU that we co-operate effectively in judicial and police matters in the fight against crime and terrorism. Criminals do not care about what is right. We do, and so we fight them with the restrictions imposed upon ourselves by our commitment to democracy, freedom and human rights—everything that underpins our civil liberties. We abandon those at our peril. Of course extradition procedures must ensure that criminals are prosecuted but, just as important, is that justice should actually be done.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before I start the substance of my speech I should like to say a couple of things. First, I have interests to declare. I am a vice-chairman of the Council of Justice and a trustee of Fair Trials Abroad—both organisations very much involved with the issues being debated today. Secondly, I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is not only present in the House today but is returning to battle and will be addressing your Lordships later.
The United Kingdom law on extradition is plainly archaic. Although most of it is contained in the Extradition Act 1989, that Act re-enacted large parts of the Extradition Act 1870—more than 130 years ago. Our procedure is complicated and gives far too many opportunities for a determined objector to delay extradition until the cows come home. On the whole, the speed of the criminal process in United Kingdom courts is comparatively good. But extradition is very

863
much an exception to that rule. As the Minister said, there have been notorious cases where extradition proceedings have taken some six or seven years before the defendant was sent to trial.
There are surprisingly few cases of extradition. In the years 1999–2001, taken together, the United Kingdom extradited only 139 people—an average of fewer than 50 people a year. That must be many fewer than the number of people in the United Kingdom who have committed extraditable offences elsewhere and it suggests that the difficulty and expense of extradition processes means that there are many people in the United Kingdom who are escaping justice in other countries. And, of course, equally, vice versa. There are many people abroad who are escaping justice in the United Kingdom. For many years, the Spanish costa del crime was notorious as offering sanctuary to United Kingdom criminals, although the situation has improved notably in recent years.
Part 1 of the Bill implements the European arrest warrant. Unlike the Conservatives, we on these Benches support and welcome the European arrest warrant in principle. It greatly simplifies procedure. It eliminates the involvement of the Minister in decision taking and the consequent opportunities for delay. We believe that that is all to the good. We also welcome the improvements made by the Government to the Bill since its original publication in draft—for example, the tightening up of the rules about extradition to countries which apply the death penalty and the acceptance that the "specialty rule" should continue in force.
But there are issues that still remain and a number of them are important. The first comes at the beginning of the Bill in Clause 1(1). This provides that category 1 territories will be designated by an Order in Council. The difference between category 1 and category 2 is of enormous importance. For example, in category 1 there is no need to show a prima facie case, whereas, in general, in category 2 there will be such a need. As I indicated, in category 1 there is no ministerial involvement; in category 2 there is.
Therefore, we believe that designation of a category 1 state should require an affirmative resolution which ensures that there is formal parliamentary approval for this step and not merely reliance on someone praying against an order if they notice it happening. In deciding to go for the negative procedure, the Government claim to be relying on a precedent in the Extradition Act 1989. That raises a somewhat different issue. In any event, we should not rely on a precedent if it is a bad one. I shall be very surprised if the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform does not press for the affirmative resolution procedure in this case.
Which states will be in category 1? The Government say that they intend to designate all EU states as category 1 states. That is understandable and appropriate. The Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons suggested that membership of category 1 should be limited to signatories of the framework decision so that countries which were not
864
parties to that decision could not get the benefit of the removal of the dual criminality rule. That is a fair point, although perhaps the Home Affairs Select Committee has gone too far in its solution. We have no objection to Norway and Iceland becoming category 1 countries, as has been specifically suggested. We can imagine a number of other countries which could appropriately be included in category 1, although not, I have to say emphatically, the United States of America.
The way of dealing with the point made by the Home Affairs Select Committee may be to provide that the present rule on dual criminality should continue to apply to all countries in category 1, except those which are signatories to the framework decision. I think that it is at least possible that we should also impose some statutory restriction on the right to become a category 1 state. An appropriate test would be the acceptance of some form of oversight on human rights issues by an international tribunal. This would include acceptance of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and for non-European countries the ratification of the optional protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which gives individuals the right to refer complaints to the international covenant's human rights committee.
I turn now to the most controversial element in the Bill—the removal of the dual criminality requirement for offences on the European framework list. The importance of this issue has been exaggerated. I fully accept that people ought to comply with the laws of the country in which they are at any given time, even if they are not residents or citizens of that country. I also believe that in the case of an offence carrying a penalty of at least three years imprisonment in another member state, it is nearly certain that there will be a corresponding offence in the United Kingdom.
I recognise that the abolition of the need to identify a specific United Kingdom offence to match the offence in the requesting state will simplify matters procedurally, but I have concerns. First, the gold-plating of the requirement of the framework decision by extending the removal of dual criminality down to offences carrying only a one-year maximum penalty increases the possibility of extradition for offences which genuinely do not match United Kingdom offences. I believe that it creates a real possibility that an offence might be committed without the knowledge that an offence was being committed. Of course, even in cases of offences of this kind, the great majority of extradition offences will be clearly matched by a UK offence and there will be no problem about extradition. I believe that we should limit the removal of the dual criminality rule to cases in which we are actually required to do so by the framework decision.
The next concern on this issue is the lack of parliamentary control over additions to the European framework list. I believe there plainly should be such control, perhaps by putting the list in a schedule and then requiring a change to the list to be made by Order in Council under the affirmative procedure.

865
Finally, on this issue, there is the inclusion of racism and xenophobia on the list. I see no reason why serious racism offences should not be on the list. Incitement to racial hatred, as the Minister mentioned, is an offence in the United Kingdom, and a serious offence. Protection is given by Clause 21: anyone charged with an offence that is, for example, incompatible with freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European convention would be protected from extradition. But I feel still a residual problem with the vagueness of the expression "racism and xenophobia". I understand that a framework decision on racism and xenophobia is under negotiation within the European Union. I accept that it is the definition in the requesting state which matters, but the framework decision will create a benchmark against which national definitions can be tested. I believe that it would be best if racism and xenophobia were not treated as part of the European framework list until the framework decision on that subject has been adopted.
I turn to an issue which I believe to be far more serious than anything to do with the European framework list—the defects in criminal procedure in some European Union states. Some of the criticism on this ground goes too far. I am greatly surprised by the number of articles about the European arrest warrant which repeat the old fantasy about defendants in European criminal trials being presumed guilty until proved innocent. That is complete nonsense. Article 6.2 of the European convention says—and this recognises and repeats what is general law throughout the European Union—that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
However, Article 6.3 of the convention contains important provisions which are not always observed. These are the right of a defendant to free legal assistance when the interests of justice so require and the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if the defendant cannot understand or speak the language used in court. The experience in particular of Fair Trials Abroad shows serious problems in some countries in getting assistance from competent lawyers and interpreters, even in some of the European Union countries which are already members, such as Greece. This problem will undoubtedly become worse following accession.
This will cause a serious problem. Some people will seek to challenge extradition on human rights grounds based on defects in the criminal process in the requesting state. What evidence will be needed to support that challenge? Will a decision in one case be binding in other cases relating to the same state? I wonder whether it would be desirable, in cases where there are doubts about the availability of legal and interpretation assistance, to give a judge power to require assurances that the defendant to the extradition hearing will be given the necessary assistance comparable to the assurances which are required under Part 2 that the death penalty will not be applied.
866
Another problem not limited to extradition cases but including them is discrimination against non-residents for the grant of bail. In some countries, it is far harder for foreigners to get bail than for national residents. Refusal of bail can be the cause of extreme hardship. There is a danger that discrimination in the grant of bail may also be grounds for objection under Clause 21. There is, I believe, a strong need to develop a Eurobail system under which a person granted bail in one country can be rapidly returned to that country if he refuses to go of his own will. That would make it much easier to obtain bail.
Part 2 of the Bill also speeds up proceedings. We welcome the fact that the power of the Home Secretary to exercise discretion is much reduced, with a likely reduction in the opportunities for judicial review. I note that under Clause 106 the decision of the Home Secretary will be subject to appeal to the High Court rather than to judicial review. That is a welcome step. I wonder whether it will be possible to require an appeal to the High Court from the decision of the judge under Clause 101 to be combined with an appeal to the High Court from the Home Secretary's decision under Clause 106 in a single set of proceedings. That could speed up proceedings greatly.
On perhaps a more important point, Clause 83 gives power, once again by Order in Council, to designate some category 2 territories as exempt from the need to present prima facie evidence of a case to answer before extradition can be ordered. That power already exists; it has been used to exempt signatories of the European convention on extradition. That convention is sponsored by the European Council, not the European Union, so its parties include many non-EU states. I believe that a further extension should require proper parliamentary control through an Order in Council, once again approved by both Houses under the affirmative procedure. The exemption from the need to show a prima facie case provides an intermediate case somewhere between category 1 and category 2. I can imagine a number of states where it would be appropriate to exclude the need to show a prima facie case. Once again, those would not include the United States of America, a country where there are 51 different jurisdictions—one federal and 50 state jurisdictions. None is under the control of another and standards are wildly different. I would have no problems with procedure in Massachusetts; I would have enormous problems with procedure in, for example, Texas.
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill in principle. I believe that the European arrest warrant is a useful weapon in bringing cross-border criminals to justice. It is far from being the threat to the English legal system that its enemies portray it as being. But the Bill needs a good deal of improvement. I hope that we shall be able to make those improvements in your Lordships' House.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I would be very far from suggesting that the present law of extradition does not require major reform, particularly to get rid of delays. But I have some

867
experience of getting rid of delays in the judicial context. It can be done by strong judicial management and by putting in requirements, which in my day were called leave and I think are now called permission or something else newfangled. The use of those two instruments will cut down delay immeasurably, but I do not think that the way in which the Bill seeks to do it is right. I agree that a lot of the claims of eroding the rights of the British public may be overblown, but they are considerable, and this is a very serious Bill from that point of view.
Faced with an extradition request under Part 1 of the Bill, the courts are concerned solely with form and not with substance. If the warrant looks all right, the "extraditee" might just as well pack his bags and get on with it. I am reminded of the apocryphal story of the accused in a British court, who had the perfect alibi; namely, that he was the guest of Her Majesty in a prison at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed by him. He refused to take that point, because he thought that it might prejudice the jury against him. That does not arise in this form in the Bill, but the fact is that if someone was in that position, he could tell the judge about it till he was blue in the face, and the judge would not be prejudiced against him—the judge would simply say, "Tell that to the Greek judge". I do not regard that as satisfactory.
It is unfortunate that the Bill comes before the House on this particular day, as I am sure that many of your Lordships are out on other activities. I do not mean the sort of activity that is causing a Metropolitan Police helicopter to hover overhead, but the activity of encouraging a reluctant and uninterested public to take part in local government elections. It is doubly unfortunate in that the pearls of wisdom that fall from the lips of other speakers here today will go entirely unnoticed, as everyone does their sums in tomorrow's newspapers about the number of seats that have been won and lost.
I found the Explanatory Notes provided by the Home Office immensely helpful. Nothing in the Bill told me what was an extradition offence and, not being as steeped in matters European as no doubt I should be, I simply did not know. However, the Explanatory Notes helpfully drew my attention to what Clause 65 refers to.
Attention has already been drawn to the problems of racism, xenophobia and swindling. I accept the point made by the Minister that these are categories rather than specific offences, but they are very wide categories.
I find it slightly regrettable that paragraphs 6 to 11 of the Explanatory Notes seem to be promotional material. When I wrote Explanatory Notes for a Private Member's Bill, I hit against the fact that paragraph 6.21 of the Companion told me that I could not use the Explanatory Notes to promote my Bill, although I thought that its merits justified promotion. Well, I would, would I not? However, the Home Office should have complied with the rules if I have understood them correctly.
868
The Bill consists of three major parts: extradition from the UK to a category 1 country; extradition from the UK to a category 2 country; and extradition to the UK. I gather from the Explanatory Notes that there is enthusiastic support for this Bill from,
"the Crown Prosecution Service … Metropolitan Police, Foreign and Commonwealth Office'',
the Bow Street court—although I am not sure how a court could have an opinion—and others, whoever they may be. I am not surprised. I am sure that people from those bodies all read Part 3, relating to extradition to the United Kingdom. I shall say nothing about that aspect of the Bill, as I want to put the spotlight on category 1.
The first that Joe Citizen knows that he is to be arrested on a foreign warrant is when the constable taps him on the shoulder and says, "I have a warrant here, please come with me". The constable knows nothing about the warrant, either. It is true that he has to give it to the accused, if he has it—but I would query to what extent it informs the citizen, who knows only that someone has arrived in his home, interrupted his television programme and told him that he must start forthwith on a journey to the toe of Italy, or wherever.
The citizen then appears before a judge. The question that the judge has to decide in the first instance is whether the arrested man is the person named in the warrant. However, that is not really what matters. What matters is whether the arrested man is the person who actually committed the offence, or even who is alleged to have committed the offence. The country seeking the extradition knows only the identity that was acquired from the evidence.
The easiest way of explaining the situation is to draw attention to the South African case, in which the identity of a British subject was stolen and used by a criminal in the course of committing his offence. It is true that the warrant did not come to this country. However, the warrant issued by the United States authorities to the South African authorities called for the arrest of Mr X, and it was a Mr X that the United States authorities wanted arrested. That was the man who was arrested by the South African authorities.
There would be no opportunity under the category 1 system for him to say, "I have never been to this country, or wherever the offence was alleged to have been committed. Clearly, my identity has been stolen". The judge then has to decide a crucial and fundamental question on the balance of probabilities. Is that good enough? Surely, although it is not the right question, the judge should at least be sure of the answer to the wrong question. The right question is, "Was the accused the person who is truly alleged to have committed the crime?" not "Was he the person named in the warrant?"
The consequences of an arrest warrant are far too serious to be dealt with on a civil basis. The citizen is taken abroad even if he can prove a complete alibi. He does not have the cost of the journey out, but he will have the cost of the journey back whether he is convicted or not. If he is granted bail, he will have the double cost of returning here and then going back to the country concerned.

869
Mention has already been made of the problems of language, of being faced with a strange system of law, of getting adequate legal advice and assistance and so on, but I shall focus on the question of bail. If I may be anecdotal for a moment, I ran into a problem over bail in the context of the difference between English and Scottish law. A Scottish trawler put into Grimsby and, when the sailors had celebrated their arrival unduly, they proceeded to cause a great deal of damage in that town. They were all, very properly, arrested and told that they could have bail in the sum of £500 each, or whatever. That was perfectly all right, given that under English law it is unnecessary to produce the money. However, under Scottish law it was necessary, and real family hardship was caused as the families tore madly round trying to raise what were to them enormous sums. Happily, the matter came to the High Court, and it was easily resolved by the High Court saying that there should be no monetary bail.
The point of that story is that one can have those problems. In other countries where one does have to produce the money, there could be considerable problems in raising it and transferring it to that country. If the Greek plane-spotters' case is any criterion, there are even greater difficulties in getting it back afterwards.
The further stages seem to follow what I would describe as a flow chart or board game. The judge is at each stage faced with a very limited question that has to be answered "Yes" or "No". Usually the answer is "No", and then the next question comes. It is only in the rare cases when the answer is "Yes" that the accused is discharged. That method of drafting confines the judge to a narrow question. He cannot look at the issue in the round. There are some bars to extradition which allow him to exercise his mind. The only discretionary elements under Clause 11 are "passage of time", where the issue is too stale to be properly tried, and "extraneous considerations"; in other words, where the country seeking extradition is cheating.
Clause 20 relates to conviction in absentia. I have no particular objection to it. It merely illustrates that there is a case where the judge can exercise some discretion, just as he can in the case of physical and mental states objections in Clause 25.
Clause 21 relates to the Human Rights Act. I believe that each extradition request will be fought out under that clause. A very real question will arise if an accused person chooses to say: "I am sure that all the paperwork is right and I do not doubt that I am the person in the warrant. I obviously cannot say anything about the way in which my case will be handled, because it has not been handled at all, but it is well known that the courts of Ruritania do this, that and the other". A mass of evidence will be put before the court that is designed to deal not with a particular case but with the generality of justice systems abroad. That is not a sensible approach, although I frankly admit that I do not quite know how one would get around it. If there were other, lesser objections to the system, it might he possible to do so.
870
Turning to the question of appeals, I was heartened to see in the Explanatory Notes that the judge would have all the powers of a magistrates' court. The notes added that that meant that he would be able to adjourn the case on any day—I should jolly well hope so. He would not need any extra powers to do that. I looked a little more carefully at what that meant. It does not mean that the judge has the extended jurisdiction of a magistrates' court, which could always dismiss a case straightaway. Oh no, he cannot do that. It relates only to the very narrow issues with which he is concerned.
I agree that dual criminality is a problem. If there is no dual criminality, the situation becomes vague. A situation could arise where everybody in this country agreed that there is no turpitude or culpability involved, irrespective of whether there is a criminal offence. There is also the problem of people not realising what they are doing. I assume that if I were to say in France what I have said so often here—namely, that the French regard international obligations as something to be taken à la carte—I might risk falling foul of French law; I do not know.
I draw attention to one minor injustice, although I do not wish to divide the House on it. It is that, under Clause 58(4) in Part 1 and Clause 130(4) in Part 2, if one is an extraditee who is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the United Kingdom and who is extradited and eventually returns here—perhaps after having been acquitted—that person's absence would not count towards serving his sentence in this country. That is monstrous. He did not ask to be extradited; he would no doubt have resisted it. Why should imprisonment abroad not be counted in any way?
I return to my original point. I am not asking for the inclusion in the Bill of a prima facie case provision but I am asking—without any confidence—that the Bill be altered in some way to enable the accused to provide proof in this regard. so that the judge is sure that the person did not commit the offence.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He made some fundamental points which we can consider at a later stage rather than now. I hope that he will not go to France because I do not want to visit him in a prison there.
I am delighted, as was the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to see the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, here today and to note that he will speak in this debate. The noble Lord served in the European Parliament during the time that I was a commissioner. We have always had a very good relationship. Long may that survive.
As the Minister pointed out in his initial remarks, the important thing about the Bill is that we should get it right. It should not be a party matter because extradition is far too important for that.
My regret about the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on Part 1 is that, much as I admire her, I do not believe that she put anything in its

871
place. There cannot be a vacuum in this regard. What does she suggest should be applied so far as concerns Part 1?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I may be able to assist the noble Lord, for whom I also have great regard. I hope that I made it clear in my speech that Part 2 will do.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not know about that. That is a doctrine of despair rather than a doctrine that we should follow.
The noble Baroness was loud in her denunciations of Part 1 but almost silent as she explained how it could be improved. She said that it was incapable of improvement.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, again, I may be able to assist the noble Lord, although it is not my practice to interrupt Second Reading speeches. I laid out three instances as regards which I believe the Government have given assurances that there are safeguards under Part 1 that could be improved by this House—all of them were repeated, I was glad to hear, by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—and another three occasions as regards which Part 3 procedures are in need of further safeguards through changing Orders in Council from the negative to the affirmative procedure. I did not want to bore the House, but I have a list of 37 improvements that we could make.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Well, my Lords, we shall wait and see.
The Minister did us a service by outlining the differences between the Bill and the current procedures. He rightly emphasised the limitations that currently apply and which are far too lengthy and cumbersome. However, while there is a need for greater efficiency, we must be careful to ensure that human rights are not infringed. That fundamental principle is important regardless of a person's nationality and the venue of his alleged criminal activity. I am deeply troubled that the Bill does not address that issue as carefully as it should. However, we have a long way to go. As we consider the Bill, we should be concerned whether the framework decision on the European arrest warrant, which was adopted by the European Council, is fully reflected in our national law.
The principle of dual criminality is still highly significant. That is, that the crime alleged is applicable in both the requesting and requested countries. Is it not right that the European arrest warrant removes that principle as far as concerns EU countries where the alleged offence carries a maximum sentence of at least three years in the country requesting extradition? Am I right or wrong about that issue?
The Extradition Bill permits extradition from the UK only where a maximum sentence of one year is applied in the requesting country and when it is not even an offence in the UK. Is that just?
872
Is it right that the Home Secretary should enjoy almost unbridled powers to reduce the protections which may apply to any country if he decides that procedural safeguards should or should not apply with regard to category 2 extraditions?
At present, countries that have signed the European Convention on Extradition—and that applies to most countries in the EU—are not required to produce evidence of a case to answer in support of the extradition requests. All those countries have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. All other countries are required to produce evidence of a case to answer in support of their requests for extradition.
Recently, the UK signed a treaty with the United States. The result of that treaty, so far as I can see, is that there is no need for evidence to be supportive of requests for extradition by the United States. I believe—and I am glad to see that Justice has reached the same conclusion—that this constitutes the removal of an important safeguard because the US is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course it is not bound in any way by how we operate in Europe. I should like to hear from my noble friend on that issue.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and other noble Lords have referred to the case of Mr X, and so on, but I can mention it as the case of Derek Bond. That case illustrates what I have said. I hope that my noble friend can put my mind to rest about that matter. All in all I consider—Part 1 included—that the Government have answered a very difficult question in the correct way. It may be that in Committee. on Report or later on, that we will consider certain improvements to the Bill, but essentially at this time I think that the Second Reading should be approved by all sides of the House because, however sensitive the issue of extradition may be, the Government have tried and have not been found wanting.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, this is a significant and controversial Bill, of which the public are hardly aware. For that reason, I regret that it has been agreed that the Committee stage of this vital Bill will be condemned to the usually empty theatre of the Moses Room.
The admirable organisation, Fair Trials Abroad, has described the Bill as one of "extreme recklessness". The Bill certainly fits in with a good deal of government legislation on criminal justice. Part 1 is almost entirely concerned with bringing people before the courts. There is hardly any section concerned with the risks of wrongful imprisonment or miscarriage of justice. Recent parliamentary answers to questions from myself have indicated a growing number of cases being discovered in this country of people who have been wrongfully imprisoned. If the Bill does not have adequate safeguards it risks adding British nationals in foreign prisons to those numbers.
The very fact that there is an organisation called Fair Trials Abroad indicates that there is a problem. That organisation has sprung up and is not just

873
concerned about justice in far away places such as Malaysia or Saudi Arabia. Much of its casework relates to continental Europe and the European Union.
The Government's case is simple. Extradition takes too long. There are all these clever English lawyers preventing French terrorists being sent back to France. So that is that.
But the Bill deserves careful examination. Collateral damage may be an acceptable concept in warfare, but surely not in justice.
Part 1 is based on the premise of mutual recognition of different judicial systems. When responding for the Government in another place, the Minister accused the Conservative Party of being against the Bill because it was allegedly against other EU countries' justice systems. In the Minister's opinion that accusation was enough to brush aside the Opposition's arguments. Little attempt of any kind was made to address some of the serious procedural issues, some of which have been raised very tellingly by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who is very well regarded in this House and always extremely helpful and informative, will give us much better answers.
The argument was simply put in another place. British subjects in foreign countries are expected to obey the laws of other countries. If we accept that one has to obey the laws of other countries when abroad, it follows that people should be extradited back to those countries if they have committed offences in those countries. This is surely not an adequate enough case. Even the Government would not attempt to apply that principle to Saudi Arabia. We may accept that Britons should observe the drinking laws in Saudi Arabia, but it does not follow that Britons should be extradited to Saudi Arabia because they have broken those particular laws if we think possibly that the system is flawed, that the penalties are disproportionate, or that the procedures are suspect.
Of course, systems in other countries have different strengths. In some respects continental systems may be superior, and in certain types of cases they are perhaps weaker.
The key point is surely that even legal systems, including our own, which work well for nationals may not work so well for foreigners. There are special problems that arise in handling the legal cases of foreigners. If the proceedings are incomprehensible because they are not properly translated, justice is denied. If access to competent legal advice is not available, justice is denied. If bail is not reasonably made available, justice is denied, particularly if the accused needs time to collect evidence from his own country. I agree with all the points of that nature made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. If the noble Lord tables amendments to that effect, I shall certainly support them.
Given the difficulties currently experienced in extradition procedures with the receipt of non-translated or poorly translated documents, it is questionable
874
whether the rights of those without a great knowledge of languages can be safeguarded. In many European countries interpreters are provided for the benefit of the judge, not the defendant. Frequently, interpreters lack the requisite training and interpreting skills.
In 1997, a European Council questionnaire sought to discover the extent of provision of interpreters and translation of documents. The French reply was that if the suspect did not understand French he would be assisted by an interpreter at all stages of the proceedings. It continued to say that there was no limitation on that. Fair Trials Abroad commented that, in the whole of its experience, there is not a single case on its books in which any English-speaking suspect has received that level of service.
Greece emphasised the care given to suspects with an insufficient knowledge of Greek and stated that there would be sufficient time for the translation of relevant documents. In spite of that, Fair Trials Abroad is trying to secure justice in a case where that did not happen—the assistant British skipper of a Greek-owned yacht who was accused of people trafficking and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment three days after his arrest.
Portugal did not respond to the questionnaire. Again, according to Fair Trials Abroad, a judge in a Portuguese case that it was monitoring decided that the accused should pay for the interpreter services, as he had been found guilty—a practice that Strasbourg ruled inadmissable more than 20 years ago.
The Government's answer to all misgivings about miscarriage of justice is to chant, "The European Convention on Human Rights", "The European Convention on Human Rights". That is their answer to every objection raised. But in the real world, the European Convention on Human Rights cannot guarantee much for ordinary people. The ECHR is ultimately dependent on every judge in Europe being fully conversant with it and its applicability to the individual circumstances of a case. The ECHR guarantees only that a victim can complain to the human rights court in Strasbourg. That may take years, and many accused cannot afford to go the court in the first place.
In 1998, a monitoring system was set up by the Council of Europe into compliance with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. It examined the national justice system in all European states. Some of the findings were unexpected, showing the existence of political interference, especially concerning judges, frequent cases of corruption—largely due to the poor salaries and status of judges—a shortage of resources, frequent delays and, perhaps most alarmingly, the proximity of the prosecution to the judiciary in some EU countries and many of the candidate nations.
The European arrest warrant puts the cart before the horse. It is like introducing the single market without commonality of trading standards. The concept should only be considered, if at all, after there has been agreement on certain procedural basic minimum standards. There should be legal aid at an adequate level in all category 1 countries, if there is to

875
be a category 1. In theory, that is meant to be an ECHR requirement, but everyone knows that many southern European countries—such as Greece and Spain—provide little or no legal aid, and often with badly trained, inexperienced lawyers.
There should be a system of bail throughout Europe. Fair Trials Abroad has produced statistics showing that there are literally thousands of European citizens on remand in Europe's prisons at any one time who would not be there if they were natives of the country holding them. If acquitted, compensation is rarely available, leaving them and their families in unnecessary financial distress. Discriminatory imprisonment of foreign nationals before trial not only punishes before guilt is established but handicaps the victim in the collection of evidence for his defence.
Fair Trials Abroad has long advocated Euro-bail. The local bailing authority would consider whether the offence was bailable for nationals. If that were the case, the accused would return to his own country. It would then be the responsibility of the law enforcement officials in the accused's country to ensure that he or she was returned to the trying jurisdiction on reasonable notice when required. What is the difficulty with that? Why should that not be done before we move to the arrest warrant?
The problem with the idea of a single judicial space is not just that different countries have different laws—that is difficult enough—but that different countries have different rules of fairness. In Belgium, a suspect paedophile is still being held on remand after more than five years. In Britain, suspect terrorists can be held without trial for six months and then another six, and another. Some people would not accept that. In France. British lorry drivers are held for months without trial.
Clearly the concept of the presumption of innocence means different things in Britain from other European countries. To the British mind, the idea of the investigating magistrate detaining someone for an indefinite period without charge simply for the purpose of investigation is at odds with the presumption of innocence; indeed, many people would call it outrageous. It is not so in continental countries. The practice of the investigating magistrate has been accepted under the European Convention on Human Rights as consistent with the presumption of innocence.
In Germany, France, Italy, Spain or Belgium, an investigating magistrate can hold someone without charge for questioning for quite long periods. Pressure thus builds on the detained person to strike a bargain with the prosecuting authority and concede guilt. Mr Strauss-Kahn, the former French Finance Minister, recently acquitted on charges of corruption, said:
"In our system you are presumed innocent until declared guilty. The reality is you are seen as guilty from the moment the judicial system is interested in you".
The Confederation of British Industry has not been much interested in this Bill. It soon will be, because one of the biggest impacts will be on business. In both
876
Germany and France, a number of high-profile investigating magistrates have inflicted almost ritual humiliations on all of the countries' top businessmen. Some people have welcomed that and viewed it as a long-overdue coming to terms with corporate malpractice. Others see the judiciary as over-eager to pursue anyone famous.
So many business leaders in France have had that experience that the process is in danger of becoming devalued. A common Paris banking joke is that any worthwhile French executive has the initials "MEE" on his business card after his name, standing for mise en examen.
Minsters say that, under Clause 2, one cannot be extradited for questioning, only if one is actually charged. That is a key point, which must be probed in Committee. Under the system in many continental countries at present there is a vague, thin, almost nonexistent line between being accused and charged. Indeed, people have been extradited from one European country to another under warrants merely on suspicion, with no mention of being charged.
The Minister referred to the scandal of delays in the extradition process—although presumably the courts had good reason for those delays—but what about the scandals of delays in continental cases? Let us take the case of Mr Soros—some people think that I do not have much feeling for him; but I do. He has now been charged and convicted of insider trading 14 years after the offence was committed. He had heard nothing until last year from the French magistrate who first questioned him in 1993. Is that justice? Would we want someone to be extradited on that basis?
Then there is the problem of standards of justice in the former Communist countries. They have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. But what is that worth? In one eastern European country that I visited the other day, I read in the local paper about someone who had listed on the Internet the houses of his country's Prime Minister and questioned how he could afford them. He was put in gaol for "undermining the security of the state". That is the standard of justice in that country. Yet those countries can be added to Part 1 of the Bill without a vote in Parliament. We know what we will be told: "It is all right. They have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. You can go to Strasbourg to appeal".
This Bill should be called the "Abolition of Extradition Proceedings Bill". The Government claim that there will be a "full" extradition hearing—a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. Note the word "full". The Explanatory Notes say that there will be a right of appeal to the High Court, and possibly to the House of Lords. But what will it be about? Some very narrow question, such as, "Are you Mr Ali or are you really Mr Singh?" I suspect, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, suggested, that the partial ending of dual criminality will remove the last grounds for substantive court hearings and very much narrow them. The proof of that is that the Government have said that they expect to be able to

877
reduce the time for extradition to three months. That does not leave much time for appeals to the High Court and the House of Lords.
This is a Bill with over-reach. It is reckless. It does not achieve the correct balance between efficiency and justice. It requires massive amendment, or it should be thrown out.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, who made an extremely thoughtful contribution. That said, I suspect that we will end up going in different directions in the conclusions that we draw from those comments. I wish to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, of something that I suspect she knows but has forgotten in the context of this Bill. When the Bill was in another place, it was the Opposition who suggested the number of days on which there should be Committee sittings. Later, as the Bill went through Committee, it became obvious to the Government that they were fast running out of time. Several offers of more time were made to the Opposition. Each time the offer was made, it was turned down. With great respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think it lies with her to remark that only 25 per cent of the Bill was discussed in another place, as she did. I am not sure whether it was a complaint or merely a comment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is leading me to develop the bad habit today of intervening during Second Reading speeches. I was very careful not to draw conclusions from the fact that only 25 per cent of the Bill was debated in another place. I am grateful to him for drawing to the House's attention the Written Answer in response to a Question on that very matter. I think it was planted by the Government. There are many reasons why only 25 per cent of the Bill was scrutinised in another place. One reason why more of it will be scrutinised here is that the House of Lords does a better job anyway.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness; I am not arguing about that. I clearly misunderstood her. Now that she has explained her comment, I think that she meant it as a compliment.
It is understandable that, when this House considers criminal justice matters, it should, quite properly, be cautious, sensible and sensitive about the rights of defendants. The most basic human right of citizens of EU member states and elsewhere is the right to live in peace and security in and around their own homes and communities. Our justice system rests upon the critical importance of that. It is for juries to decide guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It is too often forgotten that the criminal justice system is not only—or, dare I say, mainly—about the defendant; it is about the victim. Over the years, the victim has tended to be sidelined in the judicial process.
878
I am not picking on the noble Baroness, as she will see in a second, but not once did she use the word "victim". The same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. My noble friend on the Front Bench used the word at least twice. I do not make that point in any silly sense. But, when considering changes to the law, we should get in the habit of including the victim in our judgment and consideration of proposals. We should remember that there would be no legal process without a victim. There is no such thing as a victimless crime. The right of victims to respect and redress gets overlooked because the focus is on the need for a fair process and a fair trial. I agree with that, of course. But the victim also has a right to fairness.
Present extradition arrangements across the EU are unfair to victims who are citizens of the countries making up the European Union. I do not think that any noble Lord has gainsaid that extradition procedures in Britain are notoriously slow. I was an unwitting party to the outcome of one case—although it was not my intention at the start—where someone sat in gaol on remand for, I think, eight years, resisting attempts to have him extradited to Hong Kong to answer serious criminal charges there.
As the Minister said, some EU countries now simply refuse to extradite their own nationals, even if suspected of committing the most serious crime in Britain. That is absolutely astonishing. Other EU states refuse to extradite for fiscal offences. That means that UK criminals who have stolen public money—that is what fiscal crime is often about—through VAT fraud or major tax evasion can sit in the sunshine while the rest of us foot the bill for what they have stolen. I cannot believe that anyone will defend that.
Much was made in another place of not allowing extradition for UK nationals to another EU state for an alleged offence that is not an offence here. How on earth is that expected to meet the right of all citizens of all EU states for justice? I do not understand it. Is it really argued that a victim's access to justice will be determined by differing national views on what constitutes a criminal offence? Are we really offering to play host to suspected criminals from other EU states merely because their criminal justice system is different from that of their home country? It is not so much a victim's charter as an offender's charter. Never mind all the paraphernalia of the law. If one goes along with this argument, seemingly all a suspect must do is cross a frontier to avoid justice. Where is the justice in that for a victim?
It is argued that our district judges should not sanction a European arrest warrant unless there is prima facie evidence to support the extradition request. Why? The Minister reminded the House of that. It has been more than 10 years since we thought it necessary to make that judgment. Surely, from the victim's point of view, the issue of a suspect's guilt or innocence is a matter for the courts of the requesting country. What is the relevance of our views on their criminal justice system?

879
The European arrest warrant does something else that victims should welcome. It will provide that extradition in response to a request from one of our EU partners is for decision by the courts and not by politicians. I was amazed to hear from the Opposition Front Bench the argument that the decision was far better left to politicians, who can make all sorts of judgments for all sorts of reasons, than to an independent judiciary. I find that remarkable. No doubt we will have some very interesting debates on the matter in Committee.
Given that all EU member and candidate states are signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, it is reasonable to assume that their justice systems operate fairly. I shall come to a qualification on that in a moment. If that is not generally the case, what on earth are they doing as members of the European Union? There are various chapters that must be negotiated, ratified and put in place before countries can join. One of the requirements is that they satisfy the European Commission and those doing the negotiation that their criminal justice system qualifies them to sign the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to tell us who was the victim in the case of the British plane-spotters in Greece?
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, the noble Lord anticipates exactly what I was going to say. I wanted to refer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, about the availability of bail, the availability of legal aid, the problems with interpreting services and the problems with affordable access to properly qualified and trained lawyers. Given all those things and the practices and procedures of some courts, it is right that your Lordships should look for better assurances from the Government than we have had. I take that point absolutely.
The plane-spotters' case is not the only one. If I may delay your Lordships for a moment, I can tell the House of an acquaintance of mine—an international lorry driver—of some years' standing. He dropped off a load in Spain, and the lorry was re-loaded to go elsewhere in Spain. Normally, he would oversee the loading of the lorry. But, at the depot in Spain where it was being re-loaded, when he said that he would stay around and see that everything was OK, they said, "No, no. It's quite all right. We shall be an hour and a half at least. Go down the road—there is a lovely little café there—and have a meal. We'll see you at four o'clock". Back he comes, and, quite coincidentally—I assume—about 10 kilometres into the journey to the new drop-off point, he is stopped by the Guardia Civil. The lorry is impounded. It is broken down, and there, right in the middle of the lorry—noble Lords are ahead of me—is a substantial quantity of drugs.
It was the driver's case that he knew nothing about it. I believe that. Perhaps, it is by the by, but, given my personal knowledge of the driver, I believe the man. After a long delay—more than two years—he was brought before the courts and found guilty. At times, he behaved in a robust manner, and he constantly bombarded a series of incompetent lawyers and people
880
in the Spanish judiciary with complaints about breaches of the Spanish criminal code. He gave article numbers, examples, arguments and the rest of it. In passing, I should say that, whereas others in the prison were getting weekend leave preparatory to their release, he was denied it. Where a foreign national would get that weekend leave—one of your Lordships made that point—he was denied it, even though he furnished the prison authorities with the name and address of Spanish citizens who had kindly said that he could go and stay with them. I am not pretending for a moment that a mere signature on the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees absolutely that the courts will function as well as they should. I look forward to joining other noble Lords in exploring that in Committee.
We have a duty to victims—let alone defendants—to speed up, simplify and make more effective the extradition arrangements throughout the EU and with other mature criminal justice systems, such as those of some Commonwealth countries. If it is not thought right that we should do that by respecting criminal justice systems throughout the European Union, the only other route to achieving it would be to have a single judicial system throughout the European Union. My hand would not go in the air for that, and I am not sure that any other hand in your Lordships' House would either.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first of all, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Clinton-Davis, very much for their extremely kind remarks. In turn, I express my admiration for the clearly and incisively expressed speeches that they delivered today.
Unfortunately, I shall not be able to be with your Lordships during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, so, rather than dwell on some of the particular issues to which the Bill gives rise, I shall reflect on two more general issues that lurk behind the Government's approach to the framework decision and the Bill itself.
The first question is whether the Bill is really a piece of primary legislation or whether it is delegated legislation disguised as primary legislation. The second question is whether the Government have understood the doctrine of mutual recognition that they claim to have applied in their approach to the Bill.
Your Lordships' House is about to embark on detailed scrutiny of the Government's proposals—rightly so. The trouble is that your Lordships are undertaking the task at the wrong time: it should have been undertaken before the framework decision was made. There is no reason why that should not have been so. Unlike so many decisions in the European Community, those taken by the Council of Ministers, under the third pillar, are taken not by majority vote but by unanimity. In other words, the Government had the power of veto throughout the framework decision procedure. The Government could have used that power to include some of the welcome elements in the Bill itself that were not included in the framework decision; but they failed to do so.

881
I ask myself, "Why was that so?". I suppose that an uncharitable response would be to say that the whole process under the third pillar takes place in secret. The initial draft is considered first by civil servants behind closed doors. It then goes to the ambassadors, also meeting behind closed doors. Finally, it goes to the Council of Ministers, also seated behind closed doors. At no stage is there any parliamentary participation, either by the European Parliament or by any domestic legislature.
However, I want to be charitable to the Government, so I will say rather that the Government did not, for example, seek to include in the framework decision a clause like Clause 21 of the Bill and did not fight for the doctrine of speciality before the framework decision was taken because they believed that, under pillar three, they had a bigger margin of manoeuvre in crafting domestic legislation than they had under pillar one.
Is that really so? It is true, under pillar three, that the framework decision has no direct effect. It is also true under pillar three that, unless the Government make a declaration, they are not obliged to accord to a domestic court the right to refer to the European Court of Justice, for a preliminary interpretation, a matter concerning either the construction of the framework directive itself or any conflict between the framework directive and the domestic Act.
However, several other member states have made such a declaration. Sooner or later, issues such as the relationship between domestic legislation implementing the framework directive or the interpretation of the framework directive itself will come before the European Court of Justice. The court will express a view, and, once it has done so, it will be hard for judges in the United Kingdom to act in a way that contravenes it, even though that view was not a consequence of a case heard in the United Kingdom.
Moreover, under paragraph 7 of Article 35 of the amended treaty, we read:
"The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to rule on any dispute between Member States regarding the interpretation or the application of acts adopted under Article 34(2)"—
like the framework directive—
"whenever such dispute cannot be settled by the Council within six months of its being referred to the Council by one of its members".
So if a state, for example, seeks extradition but does not get it because a litigant successfully submits to a court that it would be contrary to what is now Clause 21, the member state seeking extradition could take to the European Court of Justice the issue of whether Clause 21 really reflects the intention of the framework decision.
So, in the end, the Government cannot escape the fact that the final decision on what is in the Bill, and subsequently in the Act, is really going to be a matter for the European Court of Justice. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has constantly reminded your Lordships' House over the years, the European Community has still failed to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no mention of the European Convention on Human Rights in the framework
882
directive although there are references to fundamental rights. Can we be really confident that the European Court of Justice will accurately reflect what the Government intend under Clause 21 in any decisions that that Court might make about the role of the convention in relation to the framework directive?
This is a rather dusty submission, and many of your Lordships who are also lawyers may disagree with it; but, in my view, although we are acting in the guise of primary legislators, we are really implementing a Community decision that has been made wholly behind closed doors without any participation of any democratic legislature whatever.
I hope that your Lordships will be sufficiently incensed to attend the debate that your Lordships' House will have next Friday, 9th May, on how your Lordships' House deals in future with European Community legislation. Although only a very small percentage of the time of your Lordships' House is devoted to these matters, about 50 per cent of the law that appears on the statute book each year originates in the European Union. Your Lordships spend nothing like 50 per cent of your time dealing with these matters which are just as important in terms of the obligations imposed on citizens as primary legislation.
So I should like to hope—perhaps rather boldly—that, next Friday, your Lordships will agree to a radically changed way in which your Lordships deal with third pillar legislation. There are, as I said, three stages to the legislative process—if you can grace it with that expression—for third pillar matters: the first is the civil servants; the second, the ambassadors; and the third, the Ministers. I should like to hope that your Lordships will decide to have a debate at each stage, on the Floor of the House, perhaps under the canopy of the European Union Scrutiny Committee, where Ministers report to your Lordships about the progress made at each stage of the third pillar process; and, at the end of that process, before there is a final vote in the Council of Ministers, initiate a vote in your Lordships' House about the measure under review. Otherwise there will, indeed, be a democratic deficit between the way in which domestic legislation is made and the way in which legislation emanating from the European Community is made.
I must confess that the third pillar was an invention of the Conservative government. It was intended to get round what was seen as the increasing encroachment of the European institutions—the European Parliament, the European Commission and so forth. In fact, under the third pillar, we have the worst of both worlds. We have neither the participation of the European Parliament and the conciliation process, on the one hand, nor the participation of national parliaments on the other.
The second observation I should like to make—and I shall be a good deal briefer in making it than I was on the first—is on the issue of mutual recognition. I was particularly struck by a response made by Mr John Denham, who answered a question posed by Mr Douglas Hogg in another place. My right honourable friend wanted clarification on whether a

883
district judge will assess the quality of the trial that a defendant will receive in the country to which he is to be extradited. The Minister said:
"The Bill is based on mutual recognition of each EU country's judicial and criminal justice systems. The presumption on which the original framework decision and the legislation are based is that decisions in one another's countries are respected and trusted. None the less, we need to be sure that ECHR rights are not breached. Personally, I think that unlikely in the case of the states under discussion, but it would be open to people to argue, as it always is in legal processes, that that would be an issue. It is important that the House understands that mutual recognition is a point of principle on which the Bill is based".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/02; cols. 45–46.]
The doctrine of mutual recognition was developed as part of, and indeed ultimately underpinned, the rules that led to the single market. It is perfectly true that one component of mutual recognition involved the recognition of the validity of other states' laws about the production, marketing and exporting of particular products. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will well recall, it also involved, before that recognition took place, the harmonisation at Community level of certain fundamental minimum standards. In the case of the single market, those usually involved the safety of products, the environmental standards applied to those products, and other matters connected with financial and commercial probity.
In the case of the framework directive here, the doctrine of mutual recognition may well have been applied by the Government; but in my submission that has been done wholly improperly. It was not preceded by any process of minimum harmonisation of standards to protect individuals in the judicial process.
If the Government get their way on the Criminal Justice Bill, that point may, of course, be made against us by other countries. We must wait and see what the outcome of that process is in your Lordships' House.
Nevertheless, to the extent that the Government were influenced by the doctrine of mutual recognition as a way of opposing the encroachment of the threat ofeorpusjuris, they have, in my view, wholly misunderstood what the nature of the doctrine of mutual recognition is about. To that extent, the proposals that are before your Lordships' House today are, at best, wholly premature.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to start by expressing my pleasure at seeing the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, back with us again.
In rising briefly to comment on the Bill, I feel somewhat inadequate in that I am not a lawyer, do not have the expertise of other speakers and am not able to dissect the Bill's clauses as other noble Lords have done. However, for many years I have had a layperson's interest in our criminal justice system. I have tried to approach the Bill from the viewpoint of the average layperson. I hope that I have succeeded. If I have not, I am sure that my noble friend will correct me in his summing up.
As I understand it, the Bill aims to update, simplify and streamline our existing procedures and bring greater clarity and precision to laws noted for their
884
ambiguity. It is a Bill for which we have waited a long time—since the days of Queen Victoria, in fact. For, as has been said, it was in 1870 that our first extradition laws were drawn up. That was a very different age from our own. It was an age when travel was far more difficult and much more expensive than it is today and when commercial travel did not exist, when few people travelled abroad and those who did were most likely to be the wealthy and/or the adventurous rather than the financial swindler, the drug trafficker or the murderer of today. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that organised international crime is part and parcel of our way of life in the 21st century, and it is increasing.
I am a member of Sub-Committee F of the European Union Committee. Among other matters which the committee has recently considered is the question of cross-border criminal activities. During our work we have met a good number of international organisations including the police and border guards in a number of countries. All those organisations emphasise that international crime is increasing and is of major, major concern to them. They believe—the committee agrees with them—that currently they are able to deal only with the tip of the iceberg of such crime and that international crime has expanded into areas not previously involved, in particular trafficking of drugs and of children and women for the purpose of prostitution and other even worse fates.
There is no doubt that our current extradition laws are inadequate and in urgent need of reform. With the average time for carrying out a normal con tested extradition case currently being 18 months, that appears rather obvious. The possibilities of prevarication and delay are notorious. Defendants can raise the same delaying points time and time again, making numerous challenges to the requested extradition. My noble friend the Minister gave an example of the person wanted by the French police for trafficking cannabis. As my noble friend outlined, that case took six years of court wrangling before the man was eventually sentenced to four years' imprisonment plus a fine. That occurred at considerable cost to the British taxpayer. His detention costs alone were well over £120,000.
As the organisation, Justice, has stated,
"extradition involves a fine balancing act, between the need to prevent crimes in an increasing international atmosphere, and the requirement to protect people who are within our jurisdiction from human rights abuses, whether or not these people are British citizens, and even when these abuses will potentially take place in another country".
Currently we do not achieve that balance. The Bill aims to assist us in doing so.
The Government listened carefully in another place to points raised by their own Back-Benchers, the Opposition parties, the chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Chris Mullin, and the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Jean Corston. As a result, important amendments were made to the Bill which my noble friend outlined earlier and which I shall not repeat.

885
I wish to add one or two points. I am trying desperately not to repeat what other noble Lords have said. I believe that it is right for those who have allegedly committed a crime to stand trial in the country in which the crime was committed. It seems to me that that must simplify matters. It must lead to better justice to have the trial close to where the alleged crime took place, not least because I would think that local witnesses are more likely to come forward, either for or against the defendant, if they know that they do not have to travel to another country, especially if they fear repercussions from being a witness.
A number of points in the Bill are aimed at speeding up the current processes. Many of our citizens, especially those who have been the victims of crime, cannot understand why it takes so long currently to bring criminals to justice. Under those circumstances any measures to speed that process and to ensure that justice is not only carried out but is seen to be carried out must be welcomed.
For the past 100 years we have believed in extradition as a vital part of our justice system. That, I believe, should apply whether it is a matter of extraditing a British citizen suspected of a crime to another country or of extraditing someone to this country to face our justice system. The Bill levels the playing field in that respect. I also believe that we should expect our citizens to behave themselves in other EU countries. We should surely not be seen as giving sanctuary to criminals. People should not be able to avoid justice simply because they have been able to cross a border before the police could catch or arrest them.
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, "beat" me to the matter of the victims of crime who are often forgotten when legislation is drawn up. I am sure we all agree that it is vital that justice is seen to be done. That applies to the victims of crime just as much as to the perpetrators. The current system is often seen from the victims' viewpoint as not assisting them. Indeed, some believe firmly that it does them a grave disservice.
When a victim sees prevarication and delay and has to wait many, many months for the perpetrator to be extradited, it is bound to have a depressing and debilitating effect upon them and often upon their friends and family. They cannot get beyond that stage in their lives when the crime was committed and nor can their loved ones. Their future is "on hold" until such matters are finally settled. The Bill should shorten the current proceedings. Surely that must be better for all concerned.
Finally, I want to refer to two speeches made in another place during the debates on the Bill which I think sum it up well. The first is an extract from the speech made by Lady Hermon, the Member for North Down, who at one period of her life taught European and constitutional law at Queen's University, Belfast. In welcoming the Bill she said,
"In a previous incarnation many years ago, when I lectured in the law faculty at Queen's university, Belfast, I taught international law, and I must confess that I dreaded the weeks when I had to lecture on extradition law. It was extremely complicated, and I am sure that the students ended up no more enlightened. I am therefore delighted that the extradition procedure has been simplified".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/03; col. 254.]
886
Lady Hermon is far more expert than I on this issue and I would certainly listen carefully to her words.
I shall end with an extract from a speech made in another place by my honourable friend Bob Ainsworth, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office:
"The Bill is a much-needed reform of our outdated and antiquated extradition laws. It is in the interests of us all, including our international partners, that criminals are not able to string out our extradition proceedings for years on end. The old maxim 'justice delayed is justice denied' applies in extradition as it applies in other fields of criminal justice. This Bill will finally enable us to have an extradition system that is capable of coping with a world of free movement and cheap travel".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/03; col. 258.]
I have quoted those remarks because I believe that they put the Bill into context. I support the Bill in principle and look forward to the detailed debates in this House.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I shall start by associating myself with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, with regard to my noble friend Lord Kingsland. It was a delight to hear him speak in this House again. Perhaps I may say that I was sorry to hear that he felt he would be unable to take part in the Committee and Report stages. I fear that we will miss his experience, his erudition and, in particular, the succinct way in which he always puts his case.
I agree with much that has been said in the debate, both by the noble Baroness who has just spoken and by the Minister in his helpful exposition of the contents of the Bill when opening the debate. As the noble Baroness pointed out, crime is becomingly increasingly international. That is particularly the case with regard to serious crime, whether it involves acts of terrorism, major fraud or, in particular, drug trafficking. We have to accept that there is a vast international element growing in those kinds of crime.
I also accept that today it is easier for those who commit crime to attempt to avoid arrest, trial and conviction—to avoid being brought to justice—by crossing borders into other countries. To combat this problem, it is necessary that we should have, as far as possible, international co-operation in the fight against crime. I think the Minister will agree that that was part of the purpose of the Crime (International Cooperation) Bill, with which some of us were recently involved. If I may put it in general terms, the Bill dealt with improving the powers of hot pursuit so as to ensure that criminals do not disappear or avoid being watched.
I accept that a speedy and effective system of extradition to effect the return of an alleged offender to the country in which his crime was alleged to have been committed is of great importance. Of equal importance is the need for us to be able to extradite into this country those who may have committed crimes here and who have attempted to avoid justice by moving elsewhere.
At present, as has already been pointed out, all this is covered by the Extradition Act 1989, whether one is dealing with cases of extradition from other European countries, from other Commonwealth countries or from those various parts of the world with which we

887
have bilateral extradition treaties. I accept what the Minister said to the effect that the process under that Act can be time-consuming and complicated. It can give rise to the opportunity to lodge a variety of appeals, which in turn can be long-drawn-out and time-consuming. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, gave examples of how long some cases have taken.
We are justified, therefore, in looking to see whether it is possible to speed up and simplify the extradition procedure, whether it concerns extradition out of the United Kingdom into other countries or extraditing people back into this country. I agree with the fundamental principle of the Bill; namely, the attempt to speed up, clarify and simplify that law.
If I may make an ironic remark, I am bound to say that it is rather typical that we should be starting our consideration of a Bill that runs to 213 clauses and covers 116 pages for the purpose of simplifying one Act of 38 clauses that covered 33 pages. That is meant to be a serious point. When one looks at, for example, the Sexual Offences Bill and sees the enormous complication and length of such Bills, it says a lot about the change in parliamentary draftsmanship. I accept that it is not all one party's fault. We invite the government of the day, on whichever side they are, to put things into Bills, which in itself extends their length. It is remarkable how much longer it now apparently takes to simplify a procedure that was succinctly contained in one earlier Act.
Surely it is absolutely vital that, although desiring a speeding-up and simplification of extradition, we must always remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, urged, that extradition is in fact a judicial procedure, the purpose of which is not only to return the alleged offender to the country in which he is alleged to have committed his crime, but to ensure that proper safeguards exist for the individual. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, made that point. Those safeguards must ensure that British nationals, or others who may have sought refuge in this country, are not unduly and unjustly extradited to other countries where the rules of law may be somewhat different from what they are here.
The Bill divides extradition into two parts, depending on the country from which the request for it comes. As the Minister said, category 1 countries are basically the European countries, and category 2 covers the rest of those countries with which we have extradition procedures. If I understand it correctly, Part 2 appears to make little change to the existing law, although it attempts to use the procedure to speed up the carrying out of that law. The context of the law is probably not greatly changed.
On the other hand, Part 1 seems to take away two safeguards that have been vital for the protection of the individual. First, it removes the role of the Secretary of State in being able to approve or refuse to approve extradition in all circumstances in which he thinks it right or wrong to do so. Secondly, for some 32 types of offences, it does away with the rule of dual criminality under the European arrest warrant, so that
888
people will be eligible to be extradited to other countries to face trial for conduct that is not criminal in this country.
I accept again that the Bill contains safeguards. Clause 11 sets out the bars to extradition. The Government appear to have accepted some of the arguments put forward in another place to strengthen those bars. They have accepted the bar of speciality, so that people can be tried only on the case on which they have been extradited. Clause 21 brings in the whole question of the right of the judge to see that European human rights are taken into account when deciding whether extradition should take place. However, I see no real justification for changing still further and making new reductions in the vital safeguards that we have.
On the executive right of the Home Secretary to have the final decision in extradition matters, I want to remind the House of what Liberty said in its briefing to Members. It said that the European arrest warrant is based on the presumption that European Union countries all have fair and equal systems of justice, which should remove the need for any other country to scrutinise the fairness of extradition to such a country.
As I believe my noble friend Lord Lamont showed very potently, that presumption is seriously open to question. In the 13 years since the Extradition Act 1989 was enacted, UK courts have intervened to refuse extradition following habeas corpus or judicial review proceedings in a significant number of EU cases. The Home Secretary has also refused to extradite in a significant number of other cases where extradition would plainly have been wrong and unjust. At this stage, are we right to remove the Home Secretary's role in that matter and to rely merely on Clause 21 of the Bill?
The removal of the necessity to prove dual criminality will cover a very wide area of offences. The 32 categories in the European arrest warrant are all of a wide nature. I suspect that, when dealing with serious crime within those categories, the test of dual criminality would, if it remained, be met and there would be little difficulty in meeting it.
What is worrying to me is that the removal of the requirement for dual criminality may mean that people can be extradited from this country back to other countries on, to some extent, minor matters, which, as has been said, had they been committed in this country would not have been crimes at all. I do not consider that the abolition of dual criminality will have any effect so far as concerns serious crime because I believe that in serious crime cases the test would always be met. The danger lies in the greater use of requests for extradition from category 1 countries in areas where the offences are of a less serious nature and, indeed, concern matters not even of a criminal nature in this country.
Finally, I want to make three major criticisms of the proposals as they stand. With regard to the first, I do so rhetorically. Am I right in understanding, as has been said, that the provisions which seek to do away with dual criminality act retrospectively? If they do, it

889
seems to me that that is completely wrong and that it should be made clear on the face of the Bill that they are not retrospective, as has been suggested.
Secondly, since the European arrest warrant framework document itself provides in relation to the 32 scheduled types of offence that the removal of the need for dual criminality should apply only if the minimum sentence is three years, why in this legislation are we reducing that to 12 months? Again, it seems that that is more likely to catch the minor rather than the serious case.
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, is it right to give to the government of the day the power to add other countries to the list of category 1 territories merely by Order in Council without reference to parliamentary scrutiny? It seems to me that there is a grave danger that category 1 territories will be extended to meet countries outside the European Union without Parliament being able to scrutinise whether or not the methods of justice in those countries justify the removal of the safeguards that currently exist.
I listened to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and I accept the argument about people being concerned when others are seen to commit crimes in this country and then disappear to, say, Germany, from where they cannot be extradited. Am I right in understanding that to date we are the only country which has attempted to implement the European framework document into our law? If so, the passing of this Bill will not affect in any way what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. The abolition of the rule of dual criminality will apply on applications to this country to extradite to others. The law will not change in those other countries until they choose to implement the European framework document so their rules on dual criminality will still apply when applying for extradition from those countries.
I hope that the Bill will receive careful scrutiny in Committee. I hope that some amendments will be made to the decision to abolish the safeguard of dual criminality.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, by this stage of the debate, probably everything has been said and said well. But there are one or two points I want to make and on which I seek clarification. First, I must point out that whenever a Bill of this kind comes before us, I always sit down and think what the Labour Party would have done in opposition if the Tories in Government had introduced it. I have been a Member of this House for 20 years and I was a Member of another place for 13 years, so I know the Labour Party a little by now. My guess is that its reaction to Part 1 would have been one of absolute outrage. Mr Blunkett would probably have been jumping up and down with rage that something of this kind should have been brought forward.
890
That would have been a correct attitude because Part 1 ensures that British subjects can be extradited to foreign countries without normal judicial processes for acts which are not offences in the United Kingdom and without the provision of prima facie evidence. That is a huge step. We should remind ourselves that last year. when the world was worried about terrorism, the United States wanted to extradite a British person who it thought was guilty of terrorist offences. But it had to provide prima facie evidence to our courts and they were not satisfied that that evidence was provided. They refused to extradite the British person who, had he been extradited, could have been subject to the most severe penalties. We should consider that aspect very seriously indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, listed some of the benefits of Part 1 of the Bill, one such benefit being speed. Speed can be very dangerous, not only on the roads. Speed in legislation has been found to bring about peculiar results. Certainly, in the matter of justice it can bring about some very baleful results. What is necessary when we are discussing extradition or anything else for that matter which might involve a person being imprisoned, fined or whatever is not that the matter is dealt with speedily but that it is dealt with justly. I thought that that is what British justice is about. However, there is a danger in Part 1 that speed will be considered more important than justice. In my book that is completely wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—like all noble Lords, I am glad to see him back in his place in fine fettle and voice—made a very important point. He said that the question of the European arrest warrant had been considered too quickly, in secret and without any input from national parliaments. That is the essential point about the European arrest warrant: that it has not been discussed properly. Indeed, one of the reasons that it was not considered as it should have been was the twin towers outrage. This is myth 5 of the Home Office paper with which I shall deal. Undoubtedly, advantage was taken of the twin towers outrage to push this reactionary legislation through the EU institution and to extend proposals on terrorism to cover virtually every offence under the sun contained in that list of categories of offence.
I am surprised that the noble Lord issued the paper headed:
"The EAW and the Extradition Bill: Myths and Facts".
Myth 5 states that EU empire building is being veiled under the guise of September 11th. The Minister says that that is not so. I would refer him to the speech I made on 23rd April 2002 when we were discussing the EUC report on the European arrest warrant. I quoted Mr Watson, rapporteur to the European Parliament, when he was discussing this matter of the European arrest warrant and an amendment to it. He stated:
"I would like to thank the President-in-office for reminding us that this judicial spate did not start on 11 September last year, although it would be churlish not to recognise that the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September gave a political momentum which allowed us to knock heads together and overcome certain objections".—[Official Report, 23/4/02; col. 221.]

891
So, it is quite clear that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is right: there were objections but, because of the attacks in New York on September 11th 2001, the people who were making the objections were stampeded into making decisions which they otherwise would not have made. That is one myth with which I hope I have dealt.
My views about the European Union are well known. But there can be no doubt that the European arrest warrant is yet another step towards the creation of a single European legal space. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is right about that. There are people who want to do this and they say they want to do it. They have been saying it for a long time. That is why corpus juris was produced. It is all there. The European arrest warrant will be seen as part of that plan.
Indeed, if it were not so the Bill would be in one part. There would not be a Part 1; there would be only a Part 2. That is all that is necessary to deal with modernising the extradition system which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, said, has been around for 100 years. Therefore, that can be done without the introduction of the European arrest warrant. Part 2 would suffice for what most noble Lords want to do.
I turn now to the briefing note sent out by the Home Office. I do not know why it did that. It is completely unnecessary. We could have dealt with all this in Committee, and most of it we shall. However, I want to look at a couple of the subjects. Myth 1 states:
"The EAW will allow foreign police officers and Europol to arrest British subjects in Britain".
That is cited as a myth. But the original Bill sent to Parliament, before it was amended, stated:
"police constable or any other appropriate person",
That was what was worrying everyone because that would have been the decision of the Secretary of State.
We are pleased that that amendment has been made. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will confirm absolutely that the Bill now precludes any possibility of foreign police officers being able to arrest British subjects in Britain. I hope that he will give us that assurance.
The other myth with which I should like to deal is myth 6 which states:
"The EAW is the first step in the road towards a single harmonised European jurisdiction with its own police force".
That is the alleged myth. This is the fact according to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin:
"No, quite the reverse. The EAW is based on the principle of mutual recognition of criminal justice systems within the EU. As crime becomes more trans-national in nature this is the only real alternative to a harmonised criminal justice system".
The noble Lord surely must have noticed that the convention president, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, is calling for a European public prosecutor; that he believes there should be qualified majority voting for justice and home affairs. Surely he must know that Mr Denis MacShane, the Minister for Europe, has stated that the Government are in favour of communitising the European legal system. No wonder
892
people think that this is a first step towards a harmonised European jurisdiction with its own police force.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, realises that some of what he terms myths are not myths at all but are opinions based on facts; facts which have sometimes come out of the Government of which he is part.
All the other points that I wanted to cover have been mentioned. I have just one problem in relation to the gold-plating of the legislation. The framework document says:
"European arrest warrants issued in respect of crimes or alleged crimes"—
the reference to "alleged crimes" means, so as far as I can see, that people can be extradited for interrogation, although the noble Lord, Lord Filkin denies it—
"on this list have to be executed by the arresting state irrespective of whether or not the definition of the offence is the same, providing that the offence is serious enough and punished by at least 3 years' imprisonment in the member state that has issued the warrant".
I would have thought that that has to be standard. Why have the Government decided that in our legislation the three years should be converted to one year? What happens if all the other countries of the European Union say, "We are not going to have one year; you can have it if you like", although they may take it before the European Court? The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made a good case for saying that it might be justiciable before the European Court. I really would like some clarification. Are we allowed to do that? Can we do it? What will be the effect of doing it on British subjects and other European citizens?
I hope that we shall have some very good discussions on the Bill in Committee and on Report. I sincerely hope that a large number of amendments will be made to Part 1. I say nothing about the second part. I do not believe Part I is necessary and if it is to go through at all, it needs to be amended very thoroughly.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I take as my text a beautiful extract from the Home Office's briefing note sent to us by the Minister entitled, "The EAW and the Extradition Bill: Myths and Facts". I will come back to other nuggets in this breathtaking document, but the quote with which I start goes as follows:
"The Extradition Bill is going before Parliament which, of course, has the final say so on the legislation".
I join others in welcoming back to your Lordships' House my noble friend Lord Kingsland. It gives me special pleasure on this occasion because, I think for the first time, I have been able to agree with every word he said in a speech on the European Union. He., along with my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Lamont, probed the Minister as to how we got to where we are with this Bill and exactly what our powers are. What would happen if Parliament—and by that I mean, lest

893
anyone has forgotten, the House of Commons and your Lordships' House—were to amend or, indeed, reject this wretched Bill altogether?
I have no doubt that we shall receive a silken reply from the Minister, who will do his best to reassure us without actually answering the question. After all, that is what always happens when we ask the Government to come clean on the extent to which we are already enmeshed in the tentacles of the corrupt octopus in Brussels. The Minister already went some way towards that end today when my noble friend Lord Lamont pressed him on whether we were free to reject the Bill. He said that it was a framework decision and therefore the expectation was that member states will enact it. He then said that further issues would arise if we were in breach of our treaty obligations. My question is "What further issues?"
In order to assist the House and, I hope, the Minister in his reply, I fear it would be helpful if I placed on the record the salient words of Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. That Act took us in to what was then the European Economic Community and still governs our relationship with what has become the European Union. Some noble Lords may be aware that I placed these momentous words on the record in your Lordships' House during the debate on the British constitution in the name of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, on 18th December last year at col. 679 of the Official Report. That debate was answered—or, as usual in my case, not answered—by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I suspect that the vital quotation is gathering dust somewhere in the recesses of his ample department. However, this is a Home Office debate, so I hope that it will be helpful if we start at the beginning and remember how this Parliament, without the consent of the people, started to give away so much of their sovereignty to Brussels.
Section 2(1) and (2) read as follows:
"All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties … are without further enactment to be given legal effect … and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly.
Subject to Schedule 2 to this Act, at any time after its passing Her Majesty may by Order in Council, and any designated Minister or department may by regulations, make provision … for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom".
Section 3 reads as follows:
"For the purposes of all legal proceedings any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect of any Community instrument, shall be treated as a question of law (and, if not referred to the European Court, be for determination as such in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court)".
Those words mean, as I mentioned on 18th December, that once the executive or the government of the day have agreed or been outvoted on a new law in Brussels, this Parliament—the supreme guardian of our democracy—must enact that law. We can scrutinise it for as long as we like, we can debate it ad nauseam, but we must enact it. Thus, the supreme guardian has become a rubber stamp.
894
I understand that this Bill arises as an obligation on us under the treaties because the Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, agreed the relevant framework decision, on 13th June 2002 in the Council of Ministers. If that is so, my first specific question to the Minister is whether it is true that the decision was taken as what is called an "A" item on the agenda. In other words, was it a decision about which there was no debate in the Council; one that went through on the nod? If that is so, I have little doubt that the Minister will say that it is entirely acceptable, because Parliament's scrutiny reserves had been lifted and the arrest warrant had been agreed by all the internecine and labyrinthine EU committees—COREPER and so on—in Brussels.
That may be technically true, but if so it merely demonstrates yet again the ineffectiveness of the scrutiny reserve system. I say that because of your Lordships' last debate of the European arrest warrant, on 23rd April last year, after which the scrutiny reserve was automatically lifted. Such is the system. Yet none of your Lordships who spoke in that debate supported the arrest warrant, as later agreed by the Home Secretary. Similar disquiet was expressed in another place. As other noble Lords have said, and as usual with European legislation, no vote was taken in either House as to whether the United Kingdom should suffer the EU arrest warrant before the executive signed up to it.
The point is that, if the arrest warrant went through the Council of Ministers on the nod and, as usual, in secret, that rather undermines the position of those who claim that democracy in the European Union is safeguarded because all the decisions are taken by the Council of elected Ministers. So I await the Minister's reply with interest.
Could the Minister clarify under which treaty the obligation to pass the framework decision arises and what penalties might we face if we do not? My understanding is that the obligation arises out of the Treaty on European Union: the TEU or so-called Maastricht Treaty. If so, that might be helpful. I believe that it means that the United Kingdom would not be subject to unlimited fines in the Luxembourg court if Parliament rejects or amends the decision, as we would be if the warrant had emerged from the Treaty Establishing the European Communities or TEC. So far as I can see, we do not face any penalties, even if we reject the Bill altogether, let alone if we amend it substantially. Surely all that would happen is that Mr Blunkett would merely have to return to the Council of Ministers and agree to abandon the whole project or make changes. I know that that agreement would have to be unanimous, but so is everything that is passed in the areas of justice and home affairs—at least until the convention's dark cloud has dropped its fatness upon us.
I join with my noble friend Lord Carlisle in asking how the other European countries are faring with ratification of that decision. If none of them has done anything about it, it is not of great inconvenience to Mr Blunkett to return to the Council and to say that we wish to think again.

895
Perhaps we could come to a separate accommodation with the Government over genuine terrorism. The Government have tried to mislead us into believing that the arrest warrant is all about that, and one does not want to be difficult. What precisely happens if we refuse to rubber-stamp the Bill? What is the meaning of the Government's assurance that we in this Parliament have the final say?
I turn to the famous list of crimes that are set out in Article 2.2 of the framework decision and to the Government's grotesque attempt to defend their importation into British law, as set out in the Home Office's briefing note which was mentioned earlier. To put the Government's sleight of hand into clear perspective, will the Minister confirm a Written Answer that I received during the scrutiny period of the arrest warrant? The Question asked the Government for their definition of racism and xenophobia. The Government's Answer was that the crime of racism and xenophobia will be what the extraditing magistrate says it is—no more and no less.
My third and last question to the Minister is whether that is still the position. Will the crime of xenophobia be defined by the Belgian, Italian, German or whatever magistrate? If so, how can the Government possibly defend their dismissal of at least three of their so-called myths?
Those myths are so misleading that I fear that they are also worth putting on the record. How can they defend their justification of myth number three for instance? The myth goes as follows:
"The EAW will allow foreign judges to arrest the editor of a newspaper or a comedian if they are rude about foreigners or Euro-sceptic".
The "fact" put forward by the Government goes as follows:
"Nobody is suggesting that rude comments or jokes about foreigners arc criminal or will suddenly become criminal under the Framework Decision. But making comments that incite racial hatred is a serious matter that is already a crime in UK law".
We are not worried about that. We are worried about whether it will be the extraditing magistrate who has the power to define the crime of racism and xenophobia. If that Written Answer is still correct—I ask whether it is—I would have thought that the editor of the Sun should have a care before writing some of the stuff that has been written in that journal in the past.
I turn to myth number nine. It is supposed to be that:
"The EAW abolishes our right to Habeas Corpus".
The Government's "fact" goes as follows:
"British citizens' rights to common law habeas corpus have existed for centuries and are unaffected by this Bill. The Framework Decision allows for a route of appeal within time limits",
and so on. Other noble Lords have dealt with that point. I shall return to myth number nine in a moment. But what about myth number ten, which is supposed to be that the EAW introduces the alien concept of racism and xenophobia into British law? The Government's "fact" on that one is really clever. It is as follows:
896
"The UK has plenty of offences which could fall into this category such as racial discrimination, incitement to racial hatred, possession and distribution of racially inflammatory material and publication of material intended to stir up racial hatred. Criminal xenophobic behaviour is already covered by our existing laws".
So what? What I am asking about is xenophobic behaviour which will be identified by foreign magistrates according to their law and which will become criminal under this Bill.
Surely, the Minister must agree that all these so-called facts or justifications are swept aside if it is true that it will be the foreign magistrate who decides whether or not the crime of xenophobia—or indeed any of the other crimes on the list—has been committed. That is, if the foreign magistrate defines the offence. It is not just the crime of xenophobia. One could go through many crimes on the list—as other noble Lords have indicated—given their breadth. What about environmental crime, including the illicit trafficking in endangered plant species and varieties? There are a number of plants growing on Rannoch Moor which are fairly common there, but they are extremely rare in Belgium. Who decides whether or not the plant is endangered?
The British court does not have to be convinced even of prima facie evidence, as other noble Lords have said. The British subject is simply bundled off to stand trial under an alien system. So I reach perhaps the biggest deception of all, which I have already quoted in myth number nine. It is:
"British citizens' rights to common law habeas corpus have existed for centuries and are unaffected by this Bill".
Which other EU countries have habeas corpus and indeed trial by jury? None, so far as I know. So if British citizens are bundled off to foreign and alien jurisdictions where there is no habeas corpus, how can their right to habeas corpus not be affected?
I end by saying that I really would be grateful if the Minister could answer my three very simple questions. In debates on European matters I have grown used to not receiving an answer to my questions. However, as we start our way down the road of considering the Bill, and, as I say, with the shadow of the Giscard convention hanging over us, the three simple questions are as follows. First, was the arrest warrant passed without debate in the Council of Ministers? Secondly, is the framework decision taken under the TEU? If so, what penalties would we face if we reject or substantially amend it? If there are no physical penalties, what happens? Are we merely cast into the outer darkness of failing on our treaty obligations or can Mr Blunkett return to the Council of Ministers and say, "I am awfully sorry, we have come unstuck in the British Parliament on some of these aspects". Thirdly, will the definition of "xenophobia" and other crimes in the list be defined by the extraditing magistrate? If not, by whom will they be defined? I look forward to the noble Lord's reply.
6.29 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, it is by now obvious that there are convincing grounds for simplifying and speeding up the procedures for extradition. That is

897
particularly to be welcomed if the improvement is mutual so that persons wanted for trial in this country are surrendered to us more rapidly and readily.
However, general approval for an improvement in extradition procedures—and even, perhaps, a measure of acceptance of the two-category approach—does not involve an uncritical acceptance of everything in the Bill. Like many other speakers, and other persons previously, I have serious concerns about the provisions that give effect to the European arrest warrant. Those concerns have been voiced in many quarters during the past year or two, not least in two reports from your Lordships' Select Committee, of which I was then a member, and in the debates that have taken place following those reports.
The Minister sought to suggest that the matter had been approached carefully and thoroughly. But he cannot—either by what he said today or by a document that claims to rebut myths but which does so mainly by creating other myths—get away from the fact that the arrest warrant was rushed through by Brussels on the coat-tails of the events of 11th September, even though, in fact, it has nothing to do with terrorism or anti-terrorism.
Indeed, the Minister, Mr Ainsworth, candidly admitted when he appeared before the sub-committee that he could not give a single example of how the European arrest warrant would have been of use since 11 th September. It is unfortunate that the Government did not heed the warnings and that they have now signed up to the framework decision. Unfortunate it may be, but it is a fact. I therefore have specific questions for the Minister about the Bill as drafted.
The first concerns the designation of countries as category 1 countries. Will designation or continuance as a designated country depend on genuine mutuality? In other words, will we recognise as a category 1 country only a country that has and genuinely operates an equal facility for deportations to this country? Or shall we blindly categorise as category 1 countries all countries in the European Union, even though they may not have given effect to the framework measure in any way or not be operating it at all effectively?
Secondly, can, and, much more importantly, will, the Government be minded and able to revoke the designation of a country—I of course include a country within the European Union—if, for example, there is in future real evidence that its procedures and courts do not, or no longer, deliver fair and unbiased justice, or is the unfortunate situation that once a European Union country is designated, it remains designated forever?
Clause 13(b) of the Bill bars extradition if the arrested person can affirmatively show that his trial might be prejudiced by reason of his race, religion, or so on. That may be difficult to establish if, at the time, the country's methods are genuinely arbitrary—not anti-Jew or anti-homosexual; just very prejudicial and arbitrary. It would also be wholly wrong to place on
898
him the onus of establishing that by evidence when it is well known that the country in question is shown to be unfair.
We should not have category 1 relations with a country whose regime is no longer just. Some noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, indicated ways in which, at present, certain EU countries do not meet the requirements for a fair trial. But, even if one glosses over that, it is obviously highly possible for a country's regime to change completely. If the Bill had been introduced in the 1920s, we might have accepted Germany as a country that had fair trials. But that would not have been appropriate in the mid or late 1930s.
What happens if a country in the European Union slips into a regime that no longer holds fair trials? Can it be de-designated—if such a nauseating word exists? In those circumstances, will the Government undertake to exercise the power of de-designation? As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, the Government's answer tends to be that the countries are subscribers to the European Convention on Human Rights. It would be wholly wrong if a regime became unjust but we continued to give it preferential extradition arrangements until it was expelled from the European Union.
In the previous debate on the subject on 19th November 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, very reasonably said:
"We must not work on the basis that every new proposal will be subject to gross abuse".—[Official Report, 19/11/01; col. 986.]
That is fair enough. But, equally, we cannot assume that a new measure such as this will never be used by a regime in a manner that constitutes serious abuse. If that arises, what will we do about it?
My next point is a request for enlightenment. We are told in the Bill that a person cannot be extradited for conduct that takes place solely in the United Kingdom if that conduct is not an offence in the United Kingdom—so far, so good. But what if that conduct is not wholly, but largely, within the United Kingdom? What is the position if the conduct is spread over several countries? Take, for example, the controversial topic of racism and xenophobia. Let us suppose that I publish an article in an English magazine in terms quite acceptable under English law, but a relatively small number of copies of the magazine are sold in various countries in the European Union. The article is said to offend the criminal law of one of those countries. The country wishes to prosecute me as the author or publisher of the article. Can I be extradited in those circumstances? I recognise that the answer to that question is governed by Clause 63. But, having studied the clause, I am not clear on the answer. Unless it is a very clear "No", that is a very serious defect in the Bill.
Unlike some noble Lords, I accept that it is perfectly reasonable that, if I choose to go to a foreign country, I must obey its criminal law and must be punished for conduct that breaches its criminal law, even if it is not an offence here. I do not honestly see why I should not be extradited for such conduct. But the position is wholly different if I am in England, regulating my

899
conduct by English requirements, and some consequences of my actions spill over into a foreign country so that technically they constitute an arguable offence there. It would be wrong if, in those circumstances, I could be extradited.
It is noticeable that in many speeches, particularly those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, and the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, it has been assumed that the victim and the witnesses will all be local to the court that is extraditing. If there is a rape in Belgium, Belgium is obviously the sensible place to try the case. It is not the sensible place to try me for something that I did in England just because a few copies of my article or the financial consequences of my conduct spread into Belgium. I should not be extradited for that.
There is a similar, but different, question. It also seems that a country can issue a valid arrest warrant, although the relevant misconduct did not take place in that country, if it is an offence under the extraterritorial jurisdiction of that country. Certain countries—I think of Spain and the case of General Pinochet—exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction. We shall assume that the conduct that is being complained of is an offence in this country but is not one for which we would venture to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction. In those circumstances, can I be extradited to that country, which has no connection with the offence, merely because it has a wide view of extraterritorial jurisdiction?
Finally, there is the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. I fully accept that it should no longer be necessary for the intending prosecutor to demonstrate affirmatively that there is a proper case to answer. However, what about a situation in which the accused can show conclusively that he cannot be guilty? We might imagine that an arrest warrant had been issued by some foreign country against the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in respect of a criminal act that happened at 2.30 p.m. on a Tuesday. It would be demonstrable that, at that time, the noble and learned Lord was seated on the Woolsack in the House, seen there by 200 people and, more importantly, by the Officers of the House, who are, I am sure, more reliable witnesses than most of your Lordships. None the less, the noble and learned Lord has been described in the arrest warrant, and there can be no question that it is he who is described, not a Mr Andrew Smith, who might be anybody, for there is only one Lord Irvine of Lairg. He has been described in the arrest warrant but can demonstrate conclusively to the court that he was not present. Must he still be extradited?
Again, the answer may lie in Clause 7(2). The judge must decide whether the person brought before him—Lord Irvine—is the person in respect of whom the warrant referred to in subsection (1)—the foreign warrant—was issued. It may be arguable that the warrant was issued not just in respect of the person named in it but in respect of the person who might have committed the crime and that, therefore, the court could say, "No". However, it is outrageous that, without some way in which the court can, in those
900
circumstances, say, "No", when the person can demonstrate conclusively that it could not have been him who committed the crime, the court will have to extradite him none the less. I would be grateful for enlightenment on that point.
As he is now back in his place, I shall conclude by adding my expression of great pleasure at seeing the noble—albeit, technically, not learned—Lord, Lord Kingsland back among us. I express my delight at his speech, which was delivered, in his customary style, with no notes. It threw an interesting and different light on the matter.
6.44 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. My question has essentially been put far better already by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. It is whether there will be provision in the Bill to allow this country not to execute an extradition warrant because the right judicial requirements to ensure justice are not yet in place in the country which is issuing the warrant.
Let us consider Bulgaria and Romania, two candidate countries. In the report on the accession partnerships through which the EU helps candidate countries to prepare to comply with the acquis communautaire which qualifies them for membership, we read the following on Bulgaria. The section on the rule of law, reviewing the judicial system, requires Bulgaria to,
"review the structure of the judiciary in line with EU best practice, including a review of the organisation of the pre-trial phase",
and to take,
"steps to improve judicial proceedings, in particular to reduce excessive length and ensure full implementation of fundamental rights in penal cases, in particular as regards legal aid".
Further on, we find that Bulgaria must,
"continue efforts for police officers to respect basic human rights",
and,
"take further steps to bring all places of pre-trial detention in line with the basic requirements identified in the Council of Europe Committee's report on the prevention of torture".
Moreover, it must,
"provide a legal framework which ensures the necessary safeguards against arbitrariness of detention".
These are concerns about transparency and accountability. There is proper concern about the need to transpose all that so that it can be implemented and enforced,
"in a way appropriate to the situation in Bulgaria".
In the Romanian document there are similar concerns, and concerns also about corruption, the independence of the judiciary and the need to revise the penal code dealing with "offence against authority" to ensure that it complies with the convention on human rights. Noble Lords will be glad to hear that the Romanian document also requires the necessary steps to implement mutual recognition and eventually the European arrest warrant.

901
This judicial programme of reform to meet the acquis is only a small part of an immense burden of new legislation on these candidate countries. They are required to make a general reform of everything, from the law to fiscal policy to fisheries to education. The list is endless, and the judiciary is only one part of it. Does the Bill ensure that being admitted to the EU will not automatically be regarded as having created the right conditions for extradition to those countries? The sheer weight of what has to be done is bound to cause great problems of delivery everywhere. I fear that political correctness will cause governments not quite to like to say that they do not think that the situation is as it should be in that country.
We are going to have to have moral courage. But it seems that we are going to have something in the law that requires us to exert that moral courage. Of course, everything I have quoted on those two countries is true in spades of Turkey.
6.47 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as a patron of Fair Trials Abroad and as a Member of the European Parliament—one of the tentacles, I suppose, of the "Brussels octopus" cited by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, although not, I hope, corrupt.
From these Benches we agree on the need to simplify the present cumbersome and outdated procedures to ensure that fugitive offenders are returned to face trial while at the same time ensuring their right to be properly protected. One important right is that of citizens to live in a safe society free from crime. Liberal Democrats support the principle of the European arrest warrant. The question is whether the Bill strikes the right balance between the needs of law enforcement and the defendant's right. We welcome many of the changes, although my noble friend Lord Goodhart has expressed our reservations.
There are those who make exaggerated protests against the very existence of the European arrest warrant. We are entitled to ask whether they actually want to catch the Ronnie Knights as well as the Ronnie Biggses of this world. I thought that the Tory party used to be the law and order party and the Daily Mail the law and order paper. So it is not appropriate to huff and puff about the prospect of Brits having to face the music abroad. What about football hooligans who kill or injure in drunken brawls? What about the M25 murderer, Kenneth Noyes? Should he still be swanning round the costa del crime? Surely, Eurosceptics want those "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"—to quote the current delightful insult to our French friends—to have to surrender to a judge if necessary.
The fact is that the European arrest warrant is a big step forward in cross-border law enforcement. It is right that in the EU, which is creating an area of freedom, security and justice, we should not allow major criminals to ignore borders in their operations while we let borders impede co-operation.
902
One advantage of the EAW is that it works in favour of granting bail for, say, a British defendant charged abroad. A court faced with a defendant from another member state who wants to return home pending trial may be more inclined to grant hail as it will be aware that if the offender fails to return it will be far easier to compel him to do so by issuing an EAW. It may also reduce the tendency to demand large bail bonds. The British plane-spotters in Greece had to put up £9,000 each which they are only just getting back six months after their convictions were quashed. I noted what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said on that.
There are certainly defects in the European arrest warrant—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, will she comment on the fairness of the Greek plane-spotters' trial? Is it not the case that although in the end the matter was resolved the Foreign Secretary had to intervene? What sort of justice system is it when a Cabinet Minister has to intervene? How can we possibly have confidence in Greek justice?
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me, I shall come on to defendants' rights.
As I say, there are certainly defects in the European arrest warrant. It was too hastily drawn up. The remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, were correct on that matter. Unfortunately, the Council failed to follow the Commission's proposals, which the European Parliament supported, that rights to legal advice and interpretation should be absolute, and therefore aided or free, rather than in accordance with national law, which leaves a great deal of latitude. I was present at the plane-spotters' appeal in Kalamata. They had to pay themselves for inadequate interpretation. I am also sorry that the Council failed to follow the European Parliament in inserting a reference to the European Convention on Human Rights and full jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice, and that the suggestion for a European habeas corpus did not succeed.
There is great concern at the lack of transparency in the way the Council deals with instruments affecting individual liberties. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said about secrecy and about scrutiny of third pillar measures. In fact, the European Parliament is consulted although we are usually completely ignored. Certainly, the European Parliament will not have influence until it has co-decision rights with the Council.
Scrutiny by the Westminster Parliament is, of course, a national matter. Some national parliaments have more teeth. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, but it really is up to this House and another place, with the Government, to change those arrangements. It is nothing that Brussels imposes on us.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also made interesting remarks about the way in which ECJ scrutiny will come in through the side-door, as it were.

903
I would certainly prefer the front door but any step towards full democratic and judicial supervision of EU criminal justice harmonisation is welcome.
I wish to address the way in which the Government propose to implement the European arrest warrant. Their response to the report from the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place was that they are committed to the principle of mutual recognition and determined to play a role in the development of that principle in preference to "full-blown harmonisation". But that is setting up an Aunt Sally. No one is proposing full harmonisation of the criminal justice systems in EU member states, and the Government unwisely feed paranoia when they make such assertions. As the Government well know, the suggestion is only such harmonisation as is necessary to ensure mutual trust in each other's systems—not only that they are efficient in catching criminals but, crucially, free of corruption and robust in guaranteeing fundamental rights and fair trial rights under the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which I and my party hope becomes legally binding next year as a result of the convention and intergovernmental conference.
The EU must put flesh on the bones of observance of fair trial rights such as legal advice, interpretation, bail, disclosure of evidence and minimum standards of investigation. There needs to be a way for the requested state to monitor the proceedings once transfer has taken place, perhaps with a proactive role for the consular service, and making sure that the justification for extradition for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution is not abused by any fishing expeditions. Without effective and transparent protections in place there is a risk of miscarriages of justice and loss of public confidence throughout Europe.
The European arrest warrant is acting, as my group in the European Parliament hoped, as a catalyst for ratcheting up the observance of procedural rights. There is now a Green Paper from the European Commission with the objective of putting in place legally-enforced European standards. I hope that the Government will take the lead and that the Conservative Party, including noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will support this work and agree that the European Court of Justice should enforce observance. If, in addition, the European Union signs up to the European Convention on Human Rights and the charter becomes legally enforceable, we will have a much sounder basis for guarantee.
The Government have certainly gold-plated the European arrest warrant. In doing so, they are banking on the fact that most MPs and Peers will not have read the original. Such legislation is usually put through as secondary legislation, if it is debated at all. It receives no publicity. We may not receive much publicity either, but we can try. And the media will always assume the worst of Brussels. You can get away with all kinds of unfair accusations about how Commission bureaucrats are forcing you to do
904
something. That will not work this time. Many of us are perfectly well informed on what the European arrest warrant does and does not require.
There is no need to implement it 200 per cent. It does not require the abolition of dual criminality for offences carrying a potential sentence of 12 months; the threshold is three years. I do not understand what has possessed the Government to seek to throw away a perfectly reasonable safeguard unanimously agreed by all our partners. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on this point. That may be a first for both of us.
In their response to the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place, the Government came up with the weakest argument ever heard. They said that,
"thresholds in extradition have always been based on 12 months and we believe introducing a three year threshold would be a novel departure and could lead to confusion".
I am sure the Government do not think that our judges are too stupid to cope with change and, for a government that pride themselves on their modernisation credentials—a government who castigate the opponents of their public service reforms as dinosaurs—to rely purely on tradition is an odd position to adopt.
I welcome the fact that the Government have done some rethinking. I am glad that they have changed their mind over the blanket waiver of speciality protection, which was not required in the EAW. I am glad that, after all, an exception will be made for political offences, such as when the French refused to extradite David Shayler. The EAW does not require removal of this exception. I am pleased that the Government have been persuaded to change their mind. Article 2(4) of the EAW allows for dual criminality tests to remain for the non-32 offences. We will want to examine carefully whether the Government have taken as much advantage of this freedom as they are able.
My noble friend Lord Goodhart, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and other noble Lords, stressed the need to include strict criteria on the face of the Bill for moving countries to Part 1. It is certainly difficult to see how the United States could qualify. The new clause stating that a country which imposes the death penalty cannot be a Part 1 country is very welcome, although it is hard to see how that fits with the presumed agenda of the United States. Are the Government able to give a clear statement that this means that the United States could not be included in Part 1?
The Government have said that the extradition agreement they signed on 31st March with the United States,
"brings the evidential rules for requests from the US into line with those for European countries".
In effect this will remove the requirement for evidence showing a prima facie case in respect of the US, despite the fact that obviously it is not a party to the EC'HR or that it applies those standards.
The case of the Algerian pilot, Lofti Raissi, demonstrates the importance of such protection. An urgent request was made by the US, but despite

905
statements to the court there turned out to be no evidence of his being involved in terrorist or any other criminal acts. In the absence of a prima facie requirement, Raissi would probably have been surrendered. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on the dangers of that.
The Government have said that they would lift the prima facie case requirement for,
"well-established democracies and robust and respected criminal judicial systems".
However, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart pointed out, there is great variation from state to state within the United States. Furthermore, the experience of the military courts at Guantanamo Bay does not inspire confidence. Nor do cases such as that of the British citizen Jackie Elliot in Texas, who was executed despite new DNA evidence, and where the presiding judge himself lobbied the parole board against delaying the execution to hear the new evidence. That was extraordinary.
The European Union and the Government must stop the secrecy and come clean on their agenda regarding extradition with the US. The UK-US agreement signed in March is still not available, as I understand it, and the text of the EU-US agreement is being made confidential. Neither the Westminster nor the European Parliament has the opportunity of proper, open and democratic scrutiny. That has led European committees in both Houses of our Parliament to suspend their work and write to the president of the Council, Greek Prime Minister Simitis.
The EU says that the text is confidential, but it is for governments to decide the Council's transparency rules. Are the Government, who say that they believe in openness, taking a lead in removing the confidentiality gap? Is it not scandalous that the US Senate is examining the text but, on this side of the Atlantic, governments arrogantly exclude parliaments?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, may I remind the noble Baroness that she said that she would answer my question.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I said that what we are doing is having a Green Paper, with the prospect of EU-binding law putting flesh on the bones of the rights enumerated in the European Convention on Human Rights. We would rely on EU law, as well as simply our common membership of the ECHR, so that the content of those rights was spelled out in EU law.
In relation to the sum of both the national and the EU-proposed agreements, one of which is signed, we need clarification. In particular, we need it as regards what evidence we would insist on before extradition, how watertight the guarantees are against the death penalty, whether our obligations to surrender war crimes suspects and human rights abusers to the International Criminal Court would be compromised, and whether we would extradite people to be interned without trial in legal limbo in Guantanamo Bay or to face military tribunal.
906
The early finding seems to be that the UK Government want the US wish to be put on the same footing as our EU partners as regards ease of extradition to be acknowledged. However, that begs the question whether we can have the necessary degree of trust in the fairness and integrity of their justice systems, as we can have in the guarantees of the European human rights convention in Europe, provided that there is due enforcement of such rights.
On the ICC, surely if there is to be any exemption from speciality protection, it should first and foremost focus on offences against human rights so serious that they are within the scope of the ICC. We also need an amendment to Part 2 to provide that extradition should be banned if it appears that it would be unjust or oppressive to return the person. I hope that such an amendment will be made. That would reflect the Extradition Act 1989. It surely is a traditional practice to which we should stick.
Finally, I would like to ask another question in relation to the United States. It is on the fate of detainees from, say, Afghanistan or Iraq who might be transferred to Guantanamo Bay. If they are simply transferred, will there be any safeguards by analogy with extradition law as though they had been extradited?
We on these Benches welcome both the updating of extradition law and the principles of the EAW, but there is scope for greater substance to the safeguards, and no reason why we should throw away options that the framework decision gives. I urge the Government—and the Conservatives, if I may be so bold—to support vigorously an EU civil liberties programme to complement and balance the law enforcement programme. Then we really would have an area of freedom, security and justice.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, we approach the end of a fascinating debate. The House has had the privilege of hearing speeches of great experience, great vigour and, at times, great passion. I join other noble Lords in saying that it was a particular pleasure to hear the contribution from my noble friend Lord Kingsland—not just any old contribution but one made with his old verve, clarity, and forensic skills. I hope that I misheard him when I thought he said that he would not be available for the Committee stage. That would be a great pity.
Why has the Bill aroused such interest this afternoon? In my view, it is because the proposals in it stand astride two issues that dominate the current political landscape. The first is the long-running debate over the ultimate shape of the European Union and the nature of this country's relationship with it. The second is more recent: the emergence of the shadow of world terrorism. The impact of that—especially the twin towers outrage—was graphically underlined in the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.

907
Like many other noble Lords, I can begin from a point of agreement with the Government's proposals. There is a general acceptance, which we on these Benches share, that our extradition procedures are in need of updating. The present arrangements offer the malevolent too many opportunities to take unreasonable advantage of the possible delays built into the present system.
However, it must be pointed out that those delays cannot be laid entirely at the door of the legal and judicial system. In a powerful Second Reading speech made in another place, Mr John Maples, the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. referred to the delays caused not by the courts or the legal system but by the unwillingness of Ministers to exercise their powers of decision. I quote from col. 75 of Hansard of' 9th December last year. Mr Maples said:
"I came to this issue after 11 September when I discovered that some suspects who were wanted in the United States and France for terrorist offences had been in this country fighting extradition for a very long time … There were four of them, but I was horrified to find on checking the matter at the end of last week that they are all still here. Three people are wanted for the African embassy bombings in August 1998 and are still here four years later. It took the courts a long time to deal with their cases, but the House of Lords dismissed all their appeals on 17 December last year"—
that is 2001, not 2002; this was said in December 2002—
"Nearly a year has passed, yet the Home Secretary has failed to decide whether to deport them. He can hardly blame the state of current legislation when he cannot make decisions in a year".—[Official Report, Commons; 9/12/02; cols. 75–76.]
I shall be very interested to hear from the Minister, when he comes to reply, whether these cases, which, at the time of the Second Reading on 9th December 2002, had already been on the Minister's desk for over 12 months, have yet been determined.
Further, I was interested to note in the pile of evidence that we have all received about these proposals that, while it may have taken on average 12 months for a person to be extradited from the United Kingdom—a process which the Government consider unnecessarily slow and cumbersome—the reverse process of extradition to the United Kingdom takes 10 months. There is a difference but hardly a hugely significant one.
Notwithstanding that, on this side of the House we accept that there is a need to respond specifically to the spread of world-wide terrorism. As my noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out in her speech, we do not believe that Part 1 of the Bill is necessary at all. The proposals in Part 2 are perfectly adequate. But if the Government were, in their infinite wisdom, to restrict their efforts to the reform of extradition in respect of category 1 territories to those suspected of terrorist offences, then I believe there would be some sympathy on these Benches for that approach.
But, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the reality is that the Government have not been candid, or at least sufficiently candid, about the strategic objectives behind these proposals. A key issue that the Government must answer, and which we shall wish to probe in Committee, is whether the purpose of this
908
legislation is co-operation or, in fact, harmonisation. We are debating what is titled the "Extradition Bill". As, again, many noble Lords have said, it implements, inter alia, the provisions of the European arrest warrant. Paragraph 5 of the preamble to the framework decision reads as follows:
"The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities".
Co-operation or harmonisation? And perhaps if the Government were to be really open about their plans, they should re-title the Bill the "Surrender and Extradition Bill".
As regards category 1 territories, our main concerns about the Bill can be summarised as follows: we are concerned about extent and process. As regards category 2 territories and extradition to the United Kingdom, our worries are perhaps less fundamental. But as my noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out, we have to be aware that large chunks of the Bill have reached this House with, at best, a low level of parliamentary scrutiny.
For the Bill as a whole, our concerns are about, first, the future role of the UK Parliament in monitoring this legislation; and, secondly, about proportionality. What is the balance being struck between safeguards surrendered and advantages gained?
Let me deal with those concerns in order. First, the extent of the category 1 territories. We shall want the Government to be clear about the criteria for countries to be included in categories 1 or 2. We find it extraordinary that there is to be no effective parliamentary scrutiny of any future changes made to the list of countries included in the two categories. Therefore, Clause 210 deserves a careful discussion.
In the Second Reading debate, the Minister, Mr John Denham, attempted to deflect concern on that point by saying:
"All the states that we are talking about are mature democracies and ECHR signatories".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/02; col. 45.]
But that is not the point. First, with the enlargement of the EU we will have partners who are not necessarily mature democracies and whose legal systems are relatively new. Secondly, there is nothing in the Bill to stop a future government adding other countries to the category 1 list.
Further, while the Government have claimed that being a signatory to the ECHR is an effective safety net, the drafting of the Bill belies this. Otherwise, why would we need Clauses 11, 12 and 13, or, most significant of all, Clause 21 on human rights? The second point as regards category 1 territories is process. We shall wish to examine in Committee the issues of dual criminality; of specialty; of availability of translators and legal aid; of presumption of innocence; and of double jeopardy. The latter may require particular investigation, given the Government's proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill.
There are also a number of other broader topics on which we need to tease out the Government's thinking. The first is the way in which the Government envisage

909
the interplay between the different judicial approaches of many continental European countries and that of the United Kingdom—characterised as an investigative as opposed to an adversarial system.
That is not to say that one system is superior or inferior to another; just that systems are different and the application of the two systems within a single extradition law poses particular dangers and questions that the Government need to answer. I appreciate, as the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks, that at the Report stage in another place clarification was given. But, as my noble friend Lord Lamont made clear, we still have some way to go on this issue.
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow stated, the Government have to explain why, given that the framework directive applies only to offences carrying three-year goal sentences, the United Kingdom has instead adopted a 12-month period.
In replying to accusations of "gold plating" at the Committee stage in another place—a topic raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—the only answer that the Minister, Mr Bob Ainsworth, could produce was that most of our EU partners have lower sentencing thresholds, thus equalising the position. No evidence for that assertion was produced. Therefore, Clauses 63 and 64 are likely to detain us for some time.
However, Clause 65 and its potential list of offences goes to the heart of our concerns about process. It is not a clearly defined list. Some of the crimes listed are not crimes as such in the United Kingdom and, last but least, it is a list capable of being amended without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Finally, I turn to proportionality. What do we gain and what do we lose if these proposals are enacted? As the Minister accepted in his opening speech, there is a balance to be struck. Are we striking the right balance? On Report in another place, we recognise that the Government made an effort to respond to some of the criticisms that had been made and we are grateful to them for that. But as regards category 1 countries in particular, there can be little argument that the Bill represents a reduction in the safeguards available to the citizens of this country. The eloquent and informed speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, put more clearly the dangers that we are running.
Ministers are fond of producing lurid examples. There are always three. The Minister produced the first two: Mr R and the race issue, and paedophiles—this time from Denmark. If the Minister had gone on to produce the third example, which is always produced in the briefing papers, it would be a drug trafficker who was funding terrorist networks. They produce these very extreme examples to make the case for the wider approach that they are seeking to adopt.
No one disagrees that such people are evil. No one doubts that they should be brought to trial as quickly as possible and that unnecessary delays should not be available to them. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, should be clear that we on these
910
Benches are far from unconcerned about the position of the victim. We are very concerned about it. That is why in broad principle these Benches accept the new proposals for extradition to category 2 territories contained in Part 2 of the Bill. But the reality is that there is not a huge volume of extradition cases. To buttress their position, Ministers in another place very cleverly made the point that over the past 30 years extradition requests have gone up by 400 pet cent. The reality is that this is one of those cases where percentages are unhelpful and absolute numbers are a more accurate reflection.
According to Appendix E on The Law on Extradition—a Review, published in March 2001, in 1970 there were 19 requests for extradition and 12 completed extraditions. In 2000 there were 78 requests and 47 completed extraditions. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I did not follow the logic of his assertion that because that number of cases is low there must automatically, therefore, be hundreds of cases out there that are not being followed up.
No one is suggesting that those 47 cases or 78 cases should be treated lightly, but it does mean that in order to speed up the extradition process because of an increase of 59 cases per annum taking place over 30 years, the Government are proposing to reduce the civil liberty safeguards for all the 55 million citizens of the United Kingdom. That is what my noble friend called "collateral damage". It is not something to be done lightly. Although we understand the principles behind the Bill, we shall need to examine very carefully the balance being struck in the Bill when we reach Committee stage.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am pleased to join many other speakers in saying what a pleasure it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, back in his place. I say that even from the Government Benches, which may surprise some. He is not an easy advocate. I experienced the force of his intellect and assiduity throughout the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. I am also genuinely sorry that he will not be with us in Committee. That intellect and probing makes for better legislation. We do not always agree, but that is what this scrutiny is about and that is why he contributes greatly to it.
It has been a useful Second Reading debate. We have ranged between issues of high principle and important detail as is often and rightly the way. In many ways it sets out the broad terrain of issues which we shall need to examine in considerably greater detail at subsequent stages of the Bill. Without being utterly tedious to the House, it will not be possible for me to answer every point raised in a debate of this length. I shall undertake my usual practice of reading carefully what noble Lords have said. Often it is only when one reads Hansard that one captures the full weight of what has been advanced. With my officials I shall seek to write to every noble Lord with a fuller response, or a response if I have not covered the point at all, on the

911
issues raised. I shall seek to do that before the first day of Committee because I think the House is entitled to that.
As ever, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made a strong challenge to the Government. I was slightly surprised that she advanced the argument that Part 1 should be removed from the Bill. I shall not go into detail, but by doing so we would deny the benefits that British citizens and British justice would get from Part 1. I shall not repeat what I said earlier but those benefits are substantial. Later, in her measured way. she signalled that if it was not possible to remove Part 1, she would look to where amendments could be made. That is the spirit in which we normally enjoy working with her on these measures.
The noble Baroness mentioned the offer I made to her and to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who does a first-class job on scrutinising from a Scottish perspective. Of course, that invitation will be extended to the Liberal Democrat Benches so that they, too, can be party to such a process.
Perhaps I should mention, because it has not been mentioned a great deal so far, the nature of what we are usually talking about in these issues; namely, the type of the offences and why that is germane to our discussions. On looking at the main offences by category of current cases in the system—either incoming cases to us from other European countries or outgoing cases from us to other European member countries—drugs criminality is the greatest category by far. I do not need to labour the point about the seriousness of international drugs trafficking to the quality and stability of our own domestic society and other countries. Theft tends to be the second highest offence and murder or attempted murder is the third.
These are significant issues of criminality, which is why one can expect people to do everything they possibly can to avoid extradition, but why it is crucial that there is an effective system of them being brought to justice either in another European Union country or in this country. If they are not brought to justice or brought to trial, our societies are worse as a consequence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked why the list of the 32 offences is not on the face of the Bill and whether member states can add to the list. Clause 65 of the Extradition Bill makes it clear that the list is to be found in the framework decision. I do not accept that there is any ambiguity about that; the linkage is transparent. Although there are no plans to amend the list, and it requires unanimous agreement of all EU member states, we need to retain the flexibility to respond to changes.
Individual member states cannot unilaterally add to the list. If any EU country introduces a new domestic offence, it would still need to fall under one of the categories in the list for the dual criminality requirement to be disapplied. The list can be amended only by unanimous decision in council.
We had a short discussion about 25 per cent of clauses being scrutinised. That probably was dealt with, but, clearly, the fact that the majority of clauses
912
were not subject to scrutiny does not imply that there was a failure of scrutiny. One does not go through every clause. It was because the Opposition did not table any amendments or oppose the Motion that they should stand part of the Bill. I do not criticise them for doing so for the reason that I have given. But. neither would I think it fair to infer that this meant that the Bill had not been scrutinised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked why we need Part 1. Why cannot we just use the EAW for all countries'? The difference between the EU and the rest of the world is that there is total free movement within the European Union and it has been a great advantage to the citizens of Europe. But it also makes it much easier for criminals to move around Europe.
Whether the EAW will be used for interrogation or evidence gathering is an important question. The Bill makes it clear that extradition is possible only for the purpose of putting a person on trial. That is a change from existing legislation which is silent on this point. If countries with the inquisitorial system want to extradite people for the purpose of interrogation, that ought to be a problem at the moment, yet difficulties of this kind have not apparently arisen. I am sure that we shall return to these issues in Committee, as, no doubt, is right and proper.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Carlisle and Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked whether it is sensible, as the Government intend, to go to a 12-month limit rather than a three year one. Perhaps I may.set out the main argument at this point. I am sure that this will not completely resolve the issue and that we shall come hack to it later.
First, all current extradition arrangements are based on a 12-month threshold. Within the 32 categories of offences a large number of serious UK crimes have a sentence threshold of between one and three years. These include racially aggravated assault, possession of a sharp blade or weapons and unlawful intercourse with a girl under the age of 16. Other countries have similar offences and we would want these to have the full benefit of the EAW regime if it were possible to do so. In other words, there are arguments in practice as to why this is beneficial.
There is a further point: UK sentencing thresholds tend to be higher than those of the EU, and we would not want individuals to escape prosecution for these offences because our threshold is too high. If the Bill were changed to reimpose dual criminality for offences in the one to three-year category, people would still ultimately be extradited but only after considerable argument and delay. So that does not seem to us to comply with the spirit of what we are seeking to do, which is to improve justice and fair trials in such cases. We reaffirm that no one will be extradited for conduct which occurs here but is not contrary to UK law. We will come back to these matters.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also asked about the negative resolution for designated Part 1 countries by order. Under the current legislation, there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the vast majority of

913
designation orders. The sole exception is where such an order removes the requirement to provide prima facie evidence. We are therefore increasing the level of scrutiny by introducing the negative resolution across the board. The Minister in another place, my honourable friend Bob Ainsworth, agrees that we would consider introducing the affirmative resolution procedure if a very strong case for doing so were to be made. So far we have not been persuaded that such a case has been made but, as ever, I have signalled that our ears are open, which does not mean we are persuaded, or even persuadable.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked whether the appeal against the district judge's decision to the High Court will be heard at the same time as an appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State. If there is an appeal against the judge's decision at the extradition hearing, the appeal must not be heard until after the Secretary of State has made his decision. That is contained in Clause 101(5). We envisage, however, that if there is also an appeal against the Secretary of State's decision, the two appeals will be listed together which is, I think, what the noble Lord wanted to hear.
The noble Lord was the first of a number of speakers to raise issues about the integrity of the justice system of other EU member states or accession states. I cannot pretend that I can dispose of this issue in a few short words. We will, quite rightly, explore it in some detail later in the Bill's proceedings. However, I have heard some very interesting arguments from all Benches that we should stop doing what we propose until such time as we effectively have the harmonisation of criminal procedures and/or a system that almost guarantees that we have nearly comparable standards to our own on bail, procedure or what-have-you.
This is a classic situation of the good being the enemy of the best. I remind the House that we currently extradite to EU member states and to accession states. There is not perfection in any other EU state; there is not perfection in the British state. Therefore, if I took the thrust of the argument that we should stop doing anything, we would essentially put the benefits of the individual who is accused—and I remind your Lordships of the severity of the offences we are in general talking about—at a much higher level than the interest of the victim. In other words, we would virtually cease to have any system of effective extradition until we had reached this Valhalla, these sunny uplands, where all legal systems were equally good and equally perfect. I do not think that is justice, nor do I think it is practical politics. That does not mean that we should give up on the attempt to work towards improvement of our own judicial procedural systems and those of other countries. But I do not think it is valid to imply that we should not extradite until we have that in place.
I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on Eurobail, as it will take too long to cover it now.
I had an interesting session of scrutiny before EU Sub-Committee E yesterday on the framework decision on racism and xenophobia. I shall return to the question
914
later in responding to some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on scrutiny. The measure appears to have run into the sand. I say that in sorrow, because it had some benefits, but it appears that there is such a fundamental logjam on it that the Greeks have not decided that they will proceed with it under their presidency. It is open to question whether the Italians will have it as a high priority. In that sense, it is not an imminent issue.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, asked whether there was any system of checking whether the person has committed the offence of which he was accused. In short, guilt or innocence is the matter for the court at the trial, not the extradition hearing. We have not asked the Council of Europe countries to provide evidence of cases against a person since 1991. The measure was introduced by the then Conservative government, and we have not taken the view that they were wrong to do so nor that evidence has since proved that the measure has been a failure.
The noble and learned Lord also said that if a serving prisoner was extradited, the time spent abroad should not count against his UK sentence. If a UK prisoner was extradited at the end of his UK sentence, he would not expect the sentence in court in another country to take account of his UK sentence imposed for an entirely different reason. Exactly the same principle should apply if a person is temporarily extradited to stand trial in the course of his sentence. By the shake of his head, I see that I have not yet persuaded the noble and learned Lord. I shall try to put it in writing to him. We may make better progress that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, as is his wont, both said some supportive things to the Government and made some challenges. I shall not answer all his points now, if he will bear with me, but I was grateful for his acknowledgement that we had got a difficult balance broadly right, while not saying that we had achieved perfection.
The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, contained much thoughtful challenge. I have already given my initial response to some of his remarks in my comments on other points. If I do not repeat those comments or go into detail now, I hope that he will not treat that as a discourtesy. I intend to read what he said carefully, as I know the passion and concern that he feels on this measure. He is entitled to the fullest consideration of that, both during Committee stage and in correspondence before it. I own the seriousness of it, but I hope that he will forgive me for not going into detail now.
I should refer briefly to some of the processes that are in place to ensure that the accession states come up to the decent standard that we expect from them in terms of judicial systems and procedures. We already have extradition arrangements with them—that is the first point. They have all incorporated ECHR into their laws, and there has been a generous package of support of money and practical help to strengthen the administrative and judicial capacity of their systems. It

915
is good and right that the incentive of joining the European Union is pushing forward justice in those countries as a consequence.
There is a monitoring process that requires candidate countries to report on progress. If candidates demonstrate serious flaws in their ability to implement the EAW or any measure, it will be possible to prevent them from using the EAW. The JHA safeguard can also be triggered by the Commission or a member state, either before membership or up to three years afterward, saying that they are not fit in that country to operate EAW. We will come back to that later, I am sure.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, also raised the issue of investigating magistrates and the presumption of innocence. That is such a detailed and technical issue, but I shall make one short positioning comment. Our view is that other EU countries do not operate on the basis of presumption of innocence. They are countries with which we have extradition relations, and it has not given rise to problems. No one can be convicted or punished for a crime in another EU member state unless they have been found guilty in a court of law. Additionally, the presumption of innocence is guaranteed in the ECHR, to which all EU countries have signed up. I do not expect the noble Lord to be satisfied with that level of generality, but we will go into the question later in more detail.
We spoke about the Greek plane-spotters, as it was inevitable that we should do. Of course, on one level the issue was serious, as seen by the Greeks. They believed that espionage was taking place in their state. We may have thought that they were wrong or misguided, but one would be foolish not to think that a country might not perceive that as a potentially serious issue. I will not go into the detail. The case was heard swiftly, the defendants were granted bail during the process and were even allowed to return to the UK on the bail process. So it was not all sin and wickedness, although I would not claim that it was perfect.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made a fascinating speech, which linked the Bill and the nature of third pillar legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also referred to that. As one who is privileged to take part in some of that legislation in the Justice and Home Affairs Council and to be part of the process of scrutiny here, I believe that those are good points. Next week, a parliamentary process will start looking at the current nature of parliamentary scrutiny. I will not therefore go into more detail now. I will offer just one short anecdote of my own experience of that.
The system, as we know, works the other way round. This House and another place, if they are working well, seek to scrutinise the draft documents that must be deposited at all stages before decisions are made. The Government treat that process seriously in terms of deposition and by seeking to try through correspondence and interrogation to respond to those questions.
My example is that yesterday I was up before—if that is the right expression—the noble Lords, Lord Neill and Lord Lester, and the noble and
916
learned Lord, Lord Scott, on the racism and xenophobia framework agreement. I signalled that that was pretty well dormant at this stage. I invite Members of the House to have a look at that; it involved absolutely first-class parliamentary scrutiny, as one would expect from those noble Lords. They also raised points with us that made us think that we should go away to consider the issue and come back to them. In other words, they did not merely say, "Go away. This is our answer". A proper process of scrutiny is involved. We cannot take the position that the process of pre-legislative scrutiny—that is essentially what JHA legislation is—cannot deliver results. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is right: we seek to make the process work as well as we can and do not say, "It is all hopeless"—not that that was being advanced.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked why we did not press for the inclusion of an equivalent to Clause 21 in the framework decision. The framework decision includes a provision on human rights—paragraph 12 of the preamble sets that out. I shall later come back to the harmonisation of judicial procedures. It is easy, in a sense, to say that that is attractive. There are serious risks and challenges in so doing. We have certain relevant judicial practices in this country, including trial by jury and how bail operates in our country. It is not in our view automatic that harmonisation of our criminal procedures necessarily leads to perfection. I give notice that we shall return to those issues in much more detail later.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I hope that he did not conclude from my remarks that I was recommending the harmonisation of criminal procedure. I was saying that the Government cannot on the one hand pray support from the doctrine of mutual recognition and on the other hand ignore the necessary harmonisation dimension that goes with it.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. As ever, I shall reflect again on that matter. Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I am being encouraged to be brief.
A noble Lord: My Lords, it is fascinating; carry on.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall ignore barracking from behind at this point in the proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, asked about dual criminality and retrospection. No, the European arrest warrant and the removal of dual criminality will apply to new cases. The Bill allows for existing cases that are already in the system to be transferred to the new arrangements. It is our intention that that power should be used only very sparingly where that is in the interests of justice. He also asked whether the UK is the only country intending to introduce that into law. No, everyone else has to do so by 1st January 2004. By that date, all countries are obliged to encapsulate it. There is little likelihood that we will be early. Given the timetable for parliamentary legislation, we will make the deadline but we are hardly likely to be a front runner or in advance of most of the pack.

917
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked some important questions. He asked about foreign police officers. I repeat categorically that foreign police officers will not be able to arrest under the EAW in the UK. I believe that that was the categoric assurance for which he was looking.
I have spoken to the point regarding three years and one year, a matter to which we shall return. I hear the warning that a large number of amendments will be tabled, as I would expect.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, asked me three difficult questions before breakfast. The first was whether the framework decision was taken on an "A" point? The answer is, "Yes, it was". There is nothing malign in that. In essence, when a negotiation is completed—in other words, there is agreement between the all Ministers of the JHA—it then goes back on to the agenda for the formal "Yes" decision. That does not mean that there has not been an enormous amount of pre-scrutiny, argument and debate, as the noble Lord well knows.
The noble Lord also asked about terrorism. It has never been the Government's view that the FD, the EAW and the Extradition Bill deal solely with terrorism. We believe that the Bill will speed up the extradition process. That will apply as much to serious criminals as it will to terrorists. He also asked whether it would be for the issuing magistrate to determine whether the offence constitutes racism and xenophobia. We have already explained that this is a category rather than a specific offence. It will be for the requesting state to certify that a particular offence falls within the relevant category, just as when we make an outgoing request we would decide whether the offence for which extradition is sought falls within whatever the list offence is.
The noble Lord finally asked under which treaty the framework decision was agreed. It was agreed under the Treaty of the European Union. So it is strictly correct that there will be no financial penalties for noncompliance, but there would of course be the significant consequence that none of the reciprocal benefits would incur either. As I have said previously, the Government believe that that matters to British citizens and to justice.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, spoke about the designation of countries under category 1. We intend to designate all EU countries plus Norway and Iceland, all of which will operate the EAW from 1st January or when they join the EU. Any designation can be revoked by Parliament, which I think was the answer he sought. We would consider so proposing if the country seemed to us to have fundamentally and systematically breached ECHR. So the power is with Parliament to reverse if it thinks that is necessary. The framework decision specifically allows for that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, also asked about conduct in the United Kingdom. He gave an example of a magazine published in the UK, which was then seen as creating an offence elsewhere. I said yesterday at a meeting of Sub-Committee E of the
918
European Union that we intend to bring forward amendments in Committee that will provide that should any part of the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought occur in the United Kingdom, we will be able to extradite only if a dual criminality requirement is satisfied. That will mean that for someone in the circumstances described by the noble Lord extradition would not be possible, because if the magazine was not offending UK law, dual criminality would not kick in and therefore the offence would not be extraditable.
I regret that I shall not be able to answer all the points that I wanted to. We have talked about gold-plating. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, talked about Bulgaria and Romania. They clearly are not accession countries as yet, but I take her point. If candidate countries demonstrate serious flaws in their ability to implement provisions, it would be possible to prevent them using the EAW. As I have also signalled, it would be possible to de-designate, which I think was the assurance that the noble Baroness sought.
On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, regarding the USA, we have no intention to put the USA in Part 1. In fact, Clause 1(3) now makes that impossible. She also asked about Guantanamo Bay. No one has been transferred or extradited from the UK to Guantanamo Bay. If we received a request under the Bill for someone's extradition to a detention camp, it is likely that a judge would consider under Clause 21 whether he felt that that met ECHR provisions. I say no more on that subject.
I have not had time to cover everything. I think that this will be a very important parliamentary process. I genuinely look forward to the spirit that we usually have in the House regarding probing issues in Committee. I note that we have a considerable number of days for so doing, which is right and proper. Therefore, I look forward to returning to these issues in more detail subsequently.
On Question, Bill read a second time.

Motor Neurone Disease
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the services available to patients with motor neurone disease are adequate.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my Question asks the Government whether services to patients with motor neurone disease are adequate. I shall lay my cards on the table now and say that I should be astonished if the Minister could say that those services are adequate; I hope to be told how and when they will improve.
I declare that I am associated with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Motor Neurone Disease as its treasurer. I place on record my appreciation for the briefings that I have received from the Motor Neurone

919
Association. However, I stress that the initiative for bringing the debate before your Lordships' House is entirely my own.
Motor neurone disease is not especially common. At any one time, about 5,000 people are suffering from it; it has an incidence rate of about one in 50,000. It is therefore likely that many people will never be touched directly or indirectly by the disease, but those whose lives have been touched by it are profoundly affected. Last week, I visited my local branch of the Motor Neurone Disease Association in Kent. It was full of people from all walks of life who had suffered the loss of a partner or parent but who were united in their determination to raise funds to fight this dreadful disease.
I am fortunate in not having a loss within my family, but I clearly recall the first time motor neurone disease came onto my radar screen. It was about 20 years ago when I was working alongside a remarkable man called Sir Ian Trethowan. He had been a distinguished director-general of the BBC and, in semi-retirement, he was chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which combined his considerable charm and diplomatic skills with his love of horse racing—a love that we shared.
He was an inspirational man in many ways. But one day motor neurone disease struck him. Within a matter of months he was in a wheelchair, and a few months after that he was dead. I still recall the shock of seeing the rapidity and violence with which the disease attacked him. We should be in no doubt that it is a vicious disease.
Motor neurone disease is a progressive and fatal disease that affects the nervous system. It attacks the nerve cells, or motor neurones, which send messages from the brain to the muscles. As those motor neurones gradually die, the muscles stop working. Eventually, patients cannot walk, talk or feed themselves. It is a particularly cruel disease because the minds and senses of victims are not affected. They feel pain. They know what is happening to their bodies but they also know that there is nothing they can do about it. Once they know that they have got motor neurone disease they also know that their remaining life is short. Half of MND sufferers live only 14 months after diagnosis and that life is full of difficulties.
I want to speak about several different aspects of services for MND patients and I shall start with diagnosis. As I mentioned, life expectancy, after diagnosis, is short, but the average time to diagnosis is 17 months. That means that opportunities can be lost to maximise the quality and extent of remaining life. There is evidence that the earlier treatment is commenced, the greater the impact it has, both physiologically and psychologically.
So what are the barriers to early diagnosis? The first barrier is general practitioner knowledge. General practitioners must have the knowledge and skills to identify the early signs of motor neurone disease so that they can make the correct referrals. The Motor Neurone Disease Association found that more than half of people with MND were initially referred to
920
fields other than neurology before obtaining a diagnosis. That contributes to the delay. I am aware that it is a very difficult area because the average GP may see only one motor neurone disease sufferer in his whole career. But the disease is one of a group of serious neurological conditions to which GPs must he alert.
Once a GP decides that his patient should be referred to a neurologist, the next barrier is a shortage of neurological specialists. In this country, we have only six neurologists per million of the population. We fall far behind our European counterparts. Germany has double the figure at 12 per million; the Netherlands has 33 per million; and Italy has 71 per million. We do not compare well.
My questions to the Minister are whether the Government are satisfied with the neurological content of GP training and with the numbers of specialist neurologists. If not—and I hope that the Minister will not say that the Government are satisfied—what practical steps are being taken?
OK, that is the hurdle of diagnosis out of the way. The next problem that an MND patient will face is ongoing service provision. It is hugely complex because of the many different services needed. A patient needs help from a wide range of health and social care professionals, such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists, pharmacists, social care workers and specialist doctors and nurses. There are two important points in that respect. First, the services must be co-ordinated across the organisational boundaries of health, housing, social care and benefits systems. Secondly, the services must be timely.
MND patients never become expert patients because their disease progresses so rapidly that it always overtakes the learning that they have made. Someone must organise their care for them to ensure that the right interventions are made and the right support is available. A recent survey showed that only 55 per cent of people with MND are linked with a specialist MND team after diagnosis—that is, nearly half of all patients lose out. I cannot stress enough the timeliness point. There are many instances, for example, of specialised equipment arriving after a patient has lost the ability to use it or even after his death.
Last summer, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Motor Neurone Disease heard first hand from a brave man called Andy Fairbrother about the difficulties that he had experienced. Andy lost his job and his wife after he was diagnosed as having motor neurone disease. He had to move into a specially adapted flat but failed on several attempts to get a disabled facilities grant to furnish the flat. As a consequence, his flat lacked basics such as carpets and a washing machine. He had difficulty obtaining disability living allowance. He was constantly told that funding prevented him from getting adequate professional and carer support. He felt that the stress of coping with those difficulties accelerated the progression of the disease. Andy died last autumn.
Does the Minister agree with me that much remains to be done to ensure that MND patients receive integrated and co-ordinated services to match their needs and the progression of the disease—above all, on a timely basis? What do the Government plan to do to ensure that the basic need for co-ordinated and timely services will be universally met?
Some clinical interventions have a transforming effect on MND patients' lives. Given the low life expectancy of diagnosed MND patients, the extra few months that the drug Riluzole provides, now that NICE has recommended its use, are very welcome. But some clinical interventions are not so widely available. The loss of muscle power leads many MND sufferers to experience difficulty in swallowing and chewing. In turn, that leads to malnutrition. There are techniques of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or radiologically inserted gastrostomy that can transform the nutritional intake of patients.
Another effect of the loss of muscle power is an inability to maintain sufficient oxygen intake. That results in sleep disturbance at night, followed by fatigue and/or headaches during the day. There is a remedy in the form of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation—NIPPY—that supports breathing at night. It allows oxygen intake, so that, for the MND sufferer, the following day is largely free of headaches and fatigue.
Nutritional support and respiratory support have dramatic effects on the quality of life and can extend survival, but they are not available uniformly. In fact, only about 5 per cent of MND sufferers have access to NIPPY respiratory support. Does the Minister agree that all patients with MND should be offered those interventions at the appropriate time? How will the Government ensure that it can be done?
All MND patients need carers and become increasingly dependent on them as the disease progresses. Much of the burden of coping with the complex needs of MND patients falls on informal carers who themselves need to be supported. There are many difficulties with the availability of respite care. A survey by the Motor Neurone Disease Association showed that nearly 75 per cent of carers had not even been offered respite care. I know that the Government have a national carers strategy, but it has not had much impact on MND patients and their carers. The carers strategy was long on promises, but they were not bankable by carers. Funding shortages are usually given as the reason for the unavailability of those services. Will the Government commit to achieving real improvements for the carers of MN D patients and ensuring that the funding exists?
I expect to hear from the Minister about the proposed national service framework for long-term conditions. She may even suggest that all the problems will be solved by it. The first thing to mention about the framework is the length of time that it is taking. It was first announced in February 2001, and it took about 20 months to get to the stage of setting up an external reference group. Even when it is finished, it
922
may take until around 2005 to start implementation and, perhaps, another 10 years to implement. I am sure that I need not remind the Minister that those timescales are beyond the lifespan and, hence, the comprehension of MND sufferers. I hope that she will not say that there will be no improvement in services to patients or carers until we have seen the outcome of the national service framework.
Apart from the timing of the framework, there are concerns about whether the NSF, when it appears, will offer sufficient hope for MND patients. The working groups have a wide remit, and it could be easy for the relatively small numbers of MND patients to be sidelined. Their needs derive particularly from a rapidity of progression that is not characteristic of other neurological conditions. There is a fear that MND will be submerged below the generic needs of people with other conditions.
There is also a specific concern about the Government's statement that the NSF will focus on people of working age. The onset of MND usually affects people over 55, and, whatever the age of onset, MND sufferers find that they have to cease work after a while. Will the Minister confirm that the needs of all MND sufferers, which are fundamentally about the quality of their remaining short life rather than the ability to work, will be covered by the NSF?
I could have covered other issues in this debate such as the need for research and the way in which the benefit system works. I could even haveo referred to the territory covered by the assisted dying Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, which will have its Second Reading in about a month. However, I hope that I have conveyed something of the seriousness of the issue facing motor neurone disease sufferers. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister's response.
8 p.m.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, we should be most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for tabling this Unstarred Question on this most important matter. If I repeat some of what she said, I hope that it will be to give greater emphasis to it. I should perhaps declare some interests. First, I have a very close personal friend who has motor neurone disease. Secondly, I, too, am associated with the All-Parliamentary Group on Motor Neurone Disease. Thirdly, as a nurse, I have a continuing interest in these matters. I have spoken from these Benches before in support of stem cell research, which may open up the possibility for treatment for at least some of these neurological conditions.
The concept of a national service framework on long-term conditions is much to be welcomed. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I think that it is taking an inordinately long time. One may ask, too, why motor neurone disease should be singled out from other neurological diseases or indeed from other long-term conditions in relation to the national service framework. In my view, it can quite clearly be justified by the rapid progression of the

923
condition, which has been graphically spelled out by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the fact that even where services are reasonably good, help in the form of support and/or equipment all too often arrives after the disease has progressed beyond the point when it is of little or no practical use.
Quite frankly, that is not an acceptable state of affairs in any developed country. It cannot just be left to the Motor Neurone Disease Association—which does a magnificent job and to which I pay tribute—to push at the doors of government. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies to the Question, she will be able to tell us that we are pushing at open doors.
I do not suggest for one moment that diagnosis is easy. Motor neurone disease presents with early signs and symptoms which can lead in a number of directions. But should it take an average of 17 months to confirm diagnosis? In the case of my friend, the initial referral was to orthopaedics; it was thought to be a problem with his knee. That led eventually, after some time, to major spinal surgery for what was thought to be trapped nerves. When recovery was not apparent thereafter, further spinal surgery was decided upon. That was in prospect for some time, until one of the several doctors who saw him decided to have tests carried out which ultimately confirmed the diagnosis of motor neurone disease.
I wonder why the appropriate tests cannot be carried out much earlier in pursuing differential diagnosis so as to exclude the possibility of motor neurone disease. If it does prove to be motor neurone disease, it is well known that the earlier the treatment commences the greater the benefit of that treatment. However, it confirms my view that the Motor Neurone Disease Association is absolutely right in demanding that the national service framework on long-term conditions should contain—I say that it must contain—a specific target to the effect that the average time to diagnosis for those with motor neurone disease should, by 2015, be nine months from the first symptom. On the face of it, that does not appear to be an unreasonable objective. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say something positive about that this evening.
I, too, want to address the issue of the number of neurologists in this country. I know that this is not the only field in which there is a shortage of doctors. We can all spend a lot of time spelling out the per capita differences in the very many specialties here compared with other developed countries. However, it is quite difficult to explain how there can be twice as many neurologists per head in Germany, six times as many in Holland, 12 times as many in Italy and something like 16 times as many in Denmark. I think that if the proverbial Martian landed, he would find it extremely strange.
I accept that some splendid work is carried out here, notably the research in Professor Leigh's unit at King's College Hospital, but we need a great many more Professor Leighs. Will my noble friend the Minister say what steps are being taken to increase the number of neurologists in this country?
924
It is clear from my own observations as well as from the briefing from the Motor Neurone Disease Association that there is quite rightly considerable concern about the difficulties faced by informal carers. They face a hugely demanding situation, which is exacerbated if the NHS and/or social services do not come up to scratch. I can see how demanding it is in the particular situation of my friend where support is possibly as good as or better than most.
It is right to give credit where it is due. All too often it is easy to knock services rather than to give praise. The multidisciplinary neurological team from the Merton and Sutton Primary Care NHS Trust do a really good job, as do social services in the London borough of Sutton. Tribute needs also to be paid to the St Raphael's Hospice in Cheam for the access to, and quality of, its respite care and to the Winged Fellowship, with which my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest is very closely involved.
But we know that that support is not available everywhere. There are budgetary constraints and, most disappointing, resistance to giving respite and palliative care to people with motor neurone disease. Even where one can afford private respite care, one hears of nursing homes that will promise to provide total care until they find out that motor neurone disease is involved. Suddenly they have no beds and calls are not returned. And not all hospices are able to give respite or palliative care to those suffering from motor neurone disease as their focus is on malignancies, or if they do, they may be down to one bed only. I hope that the Minister can say whether all primary care NHS trusts have multidisciplinary neurological teams. If not, will consideration be given to taking that very important concept forward?
I turn to the issue of palliative care generally and the role of the hospice movement. Hospices are one of the great developments of the past 20 or more years. There would be a huge problem for the NHS if they did not exist. I do not, of course, quarrel with the voluntary concept; it is to be greatly valued. But is the voluntary concept enough on its own? Is NHS support for hospices enough? I do not think that it is. I am given to understand that the hospice to which I referred a few moments ago is considering the ending of its nurse bank due to shortage of available funds. If that happens, fewer patients will be admitted to that hospice. I know of other hospices where the number of beds available has been reduced through funding shortfalls. Here, too, I look to my noble friend the Minister to give some word of comfort about increasing NHS funding support to the hospice movement. In my view there needs to be a sustained increase.
A great deal needs to be done if we are to give the highest quality co-ordinated care to people with motor neurone disease and the best possible support to informal carers. The national service framework must take account of the special issues raised by motor neurone disease and there must be acceptable minimum standards of care which, with all appropriate interventions, should be available in all parts of the country.

925
I hope that this short debate this evening will contribute to that. I look forward to the contributions of other speakers and, of course, to the response of my noble friend the Minister. I again extend my warmest thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for tabling the Question.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Liandaff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for tabling the Question about the services available to patients with motor neurone disease. I must declare an interest as I am also a member of the all-party parliamentary group. As a hospice doctor I have been privileged to provide care for some of these patients who have been truly inspirational in the way that they have faced their disease.
Sadly, I have to speak about services that are not available or, if available, are so delayed that by the time patients access the service they need the disease has progressed. Indeed, it may be more cruel to say, "We shall do an assessment and get back to you" than to say honestly, "It will take nine months before the modifications you need are carried out to your house". Expectations are raised, lives are put on hold and hopes are dashed as the needed services do not materialise. I wish I could say that I was exaggerating but I cannot.
The guidelines on the management of motor neurone disease prepared by the Exerpta Medica Motor Neurone Disease Advisory Group and endorsed by the Association of British Neurologists are excellent, but far too often they are not met. Making the diagnosis is difficult, as has already been pointed out, and a high level of suspicion requires knowledge.
Diagnosis is not easy. There is no single test either to prove or disprove that a patient has motor neurone disease. That is why expert neurological assessment is needed. Yet there is often a delay in diagnosis of around nine months. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, reminded us that the average survival from diagnosis is 14 months. Dr David Oliver, in his research on patients' experience, also found that 88 per cent of those dying at home and 93 per cent dying in a hospice had swallowing problems, while over four in five experienced breathing problems. Around three-quarters suffer pain, while a similar percentage experience problems with speech. However, the onset of such symptoms can be delayed by the introduction of the drug Riluzole once the diagnosis has been made.
There are not enough neurologists to meet the diagnostic burden in neurology. This national shortage, so eloquently explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and which my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant has also described to the House on several occasions, means that neurologists are simply not available to meet the educational needs of general practitioners and others. Better informed GPs speed up the diagnostic process.
926
The guidelines to which I have referred state that the diagnosis should be communicated in privacy, with the patient accompanied and given immediate support, with written information and regular feedback. But a busy neurology clinic dealing with around seven new patients and 12 follow-ups in a morning, means that that does not always happen. The standard time allocated to a new patient is half an hour, but I am assured by the professor of neurology at my own university that it is not possible to give the diagnosis properly in anything less than an hour.
The Motor Neurone Disease Association has created specialist nurse posts and centres for care and research, but they are not available everywhere. In parts of Wales, the district general hospitals have no visiting neurology service, no local Motor Neurone Disease Association service and no multi-professional specialist palliative care team. In 2000, only 17 per cent of specialist palliative care units were involved in the care of motor neurone disease patients at the time of diagnosis, yet these patients are already terminally ill when they are diagnosed. Even in the last stages, only 48 per cent of specialist palliative care units are involved in providing care. I am a hospice doctor and I find that lamentable.
All should be providing links with neurology services from diagnosis, but lack of resources means rationing of services, with the result that patients in need are often left outside the services which, due to the history of hospice development, are more freely available to cancer patients. As the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, remarked, there are huge financial pressures on hospices.
Patients with motor neurone disease need speech and language therapy to help with communication and swallowing. They need physiotherapy for mobility and occupational therapy—with workmen available to adapt the home with aids and appliances such as POSSUM devices to help maintain independence and autonomy.
When breathing becomes difficult, intermittent positive pressure ventilation, especially at night, must be considered. Some 95 per cent of carers have reported it as being of great benefit. However, ventilatory support is not available in many parts of the country. In a survey conducted in 2001 of the 376 British consultant neurologists, the majority had not referred any patients for non-invasive ventilation during the preceding year. Only 234 patients had been referred—from a patient population of 1,990 new patients and 2,280 patients under follow-up review. The team from the University of Newcastle which collected this data estimated that under 3.5 per cent of all those with motor neurone disease were receiving ventilatory support. Contrast that with the data I cited earlier: over 80 per cent suffer breathing problems when dying.
Patients are terrified of choking to death, a reason often cited when the desire for early death by euthanasia is discussed. Of course it would be terrifying to choke to death, but the data from a study by Neuder and Oliver

927
of patients in Germany and the UK showed that the vast majority—in Germany 88 per cent, and in the UK 98 per cent—of motor neurone disease patients,
"died peacefully and no patient choked to death".
So why do so many patients with motor neurone disease feel such fear and despair? I suggest that the patients become seriously demoralised and cannot access the expertise that they need. They experience delays in getting good control of symptoms of pain, excessive salivation and drooling, muscle cramps, spasticity, respiratory symptoms, communication difficulty, and a possible feeding gastrostomy to maintain nutrition. Their family does not get the training in lifting and handling. They do not get the home modifications quickly, and the equipment within days of needing it. The patients do not have time on their side.
In a study of those motor neurone disease patients who would consider assisted suicide, there were significantly more patients fearful of the future—many fewer were able to say that they had hope or faith in the future and in the support that they and their family needed—than those who felt that they would not want recourse to such action.
No patient who needs assistance with mobility should be denied physiotherapy or appliances. Those staff in the community who do not have the resources at hand to provide good care become rapidly demoralised. Patients endlessly waiting become demoralised and denied precious days or weeks of living. Families and carers become worn down and despair, and the experience remains in the memories of those who live on.
Motor neurone disease is a horrible condition. The tenor of care must be rapidly responsive, sensitive to patients' needs and flexible to their situation. The patients have much living to do in the short time left, and it is cost-effective for the healthcare services to enable them to do that. Expensive modifications are more cost-effective if useful for months or even years, rather than lagging behind a patient's needs. Patients fear putting in a complaint, as they are dependent on the staff for their present and future care, so shortfalls often go sadly unrecorded.
In the standards to be set for the care of patients with neurological disease, rapid response targets would not go amiss, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that they must be resourced.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I too am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for tabling this urgent Question. She does so all the more creditably because of the Front Bench workload that she already has. I know that she spares no time when it comes to the affairs of the Motor Neurone Disease Association, and I thank her for that as well.
Motor neurone is the most cruel and relentless disease of all. I do not think that anyone who has spoken tonight would argue with that. Like my noble friend, I have not had anyone affected in my family and knew nothing of the disease until the son of some very dear friends was stricken. I was asked to become
928
president of the Gloucester MNDA and served in that capacity for a number of years. I spoke to neurologists and saw a number of cases. I was struck by the difference in expectations in the various cases. Even within a very short period, the differences were very notable.
Equally notable was the support given by the local MNDA to the families and carers. It created an atmosphere in the circle of people who were desperate to know what to do. I certainly do not support any form of assisted death, but I can understand why internationally a significant number of motor neurone sufferers have sought it.
I believe that one problem we face—this is why the situation has occurred in the health service—is that, apart from anything else, there is so little international awareness among the public about the disease, not helped by the fact that it is called by an entirely different name in the United States.
I also want to thank the MNDA, in particular, for its briefing and for the presentation of the case that it sets out. I believe that it commends itself by the fact that every speaker thus far has quoted from it in great detail. I believe that if the Minister did not already know about the horrors, the difficulties and the multiple complexities of dealing with these problems, she will do as a result of this debate. I know that she has always responded in your Lordships' House with intelligence and, wherever possible, with a background knowledge, and I am sure that she herself is now more aware of the problems and of the humanity needed when dealing with such cases.
It is all very well to say that a hospital allows only half an hour to discuss a case. But by the time the people who make the diagnoses tell patients that they have this terrible disease, the patients know about the disease and the prognosis. Surely, humanity dictates that that information would not be passed on to someone who was not at least with relatives or friends at such a time. Training for such circumstances does not cost anything.
Of course, the shortage of neurologists is the problem. I do not expect the Minister suddenly to produce hundreds of neurologists out of her pocket. But I make the point that GPs and hospital doctors who deal with such matters and who are perhaps unable to make quick diagnoses can at least receive more training than they do at present in arriving at diagnoses. That obviously lies at the heart of the problem. One hopes that, as time goes on, i t will become easier to make the diagnoses, just as, with time, a drug has been discovered which will lengthen sufferers' lives and make them more agreeable than they would otherwise have been. A reference has also been made to stem cell research. Sufferers of the disease should always be given hope because, for some, eventually there will be hope.
I trust that the Minister will now consider the structure within the health service for dealing with this problem. It is not only a matter of targets; action is required to make a difference in every area. We are not talking about an enormous number of patients. Admittedly, those affected

929
are spread diversely across the country. Eventually I would like to see regional motor neurone clinics, obviously supported and advised by the MNDA. I do not see why they should not be available and why the resources should not be found for them. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister comes to reply she will give us and the sufferers of motor neurone disease some of the hope that I believe they deserve.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I am grateful to be allowed to speak in the gap. I shall use my two minutes to bring to the notice of noble Lords the excellent report of the King's Fund, published in July 2002, which my community calls "social care fighting spirit". The report calls for psycho-social support to be made available for people with terminal illnesses—something that is badly needed by sufferers of MND.
Julia Neuberger, the King's Fund chief executive, said that people with terminal illnesses need more than medication. MND is certainly one of them. She also claimed that support was patchy at best. The report called upon primary care trusts to use their new health community powers to fill gaps in services. It asks for the greater use of district and community nurses to provide palliative care at home; the pooling of resources across PCTs with social services and, above all, a greater commitment from government to fund care for people with a range of conditions, including motor neurone disease.
Can the Minister say whether this simple recommendation of the report is being acted upon and how successful it has been? If it has not been acted upon, why not?
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for this welcome opportunity to turn the spotlight on a particularly devastating condition. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, used the word "vicious"; a word commensurate with the condition. It is an honour to take part in such a tightly focused and high quality debate. It is the sign of a good brief that those of us who have the joy of speaking near the end have large holes in our speeches. I pay tribute to the MND Association for the quality of its briefing.
I want to pick up on one or two issues. Some have been mentioned but others have not. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said in her eloquent introduction, we are talking about a range of similar conditions. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, as it is known in the United States, is the condition that we have primarily spoken about, but there are similar, rarer conditions such as progressive muscular atrophy and progressive bulbar palsy.
I believe that the most interesting and perplexing of findings from epidemiological studies is that race, diet and lifestyle are not determining factors in the condition. Furthermore, there is no evidence that MND is infectious or caused by any other condition; there is no difference in incidence rates in rural and urban areas; the average age of onset is 50; and the male to female ratio is 1.4:1.
930
Diagnosis is the area on which many of us have rightly focused. Diagnosis is primarily carried out by a consultant neurologist using blood tests, EMGs to measure nerve conduction velocity and MRI scans of the brain and/or the spine. The only treatment currently known to slow down the symptoms for a period of three to six months is Riluzole. While there are hopes that studies into the effect of creatine, a naturally occurring substance in the brain and muscle, may have a positive effect, nothing has yet come to light.
The condition is surrounded by mystery and myths. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, there is a widespread belief that MND sufferers die by choking, yet the incidence of that is very small. It is not a muscle-wasting condition, as other noble Lords have said. Furthermore, the absence of a known cause and the search for greater understanding has led to a search for causal incidence. Recent examples of that include the Football Association's investigations into the disproportionately high levels of the condition among professional footballers in the UK and Italy. The legendary Celtic winger, Jimmy Johnstone—I can see him now jinking down the pitch—has the disease, and Don Revie died from it. I am pleased to see that the FA is willing to entertain examining the problem. It may result in nothing, but it is willing to look into the possible correlation to head trauma.
Another statistical incidence is rather better known; that is, the incidence of MND among Gulf War veterans. An epidemiological study in the US carried out by Duke University Hospital and the VA Hospital in Durham, North Carolina, found that the incidence of MND amongst soldiers deployed in that conflict was 6.7 per million, while the incidence of soldiers not deployed in that conflict was 3.5 per million. In this country to date only four Gulf War veterans have died from MND. That is a very low incidence.
However, from answers given by Ministers in another place, my understanding is that the MoD registers MND only when someone dies. Will the department track those who have been diagnosed because the incidence may be higher, and will there be a longitudinal study of the health of Armed Forces personnel who have taken part in the war in Iraq?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and other speakers said, the average time for a diagnosis is 17 months and thereafter life expectancy is 14 months. That is a very long time to discover that you do not have much time. It is a source of understandable anguish for people with the disease and those who love and care for them. There seem to be a number of reasons for that and we have focused on the main one tonight; that is, the lack of consultant neurologists. I shall not rehearse the figures which other speakers have mentioned.
On 13th March this year in another place in response to a Question from my honourable friend Mr Mike Hancock, the Secretary of State stated that the Government's intention was that by 2004 there should be an additional 78 consultant neurologists. He went on to say that central government funding will be made available for 10 specialist registrar posts in

931
neurology. He followed that up by saying that trusts will have the opportunity to create up to 20 locally-funded specialist registrar training opportunities. I have two questions. How will those 10 centrally-funded posts be distributed and what does a local opportunity to fund a specialist registrar training opportunity mean?
I also want to make a point, which has been made by other organisations working in related fields about consultant neurologists. Organisations working in the field of epilepsy—a subject in which I take an interest—have pointed out to Ministers and Members of this House that consultant neurologists are not always acquainted with particular conditions. The epilepsy organisations pointed out to us a recent case of significant misdiagnosis by a consultant neurologist who was not a paediatric epilepsy specialist. That applies to the other conditions, which are all generally lumped together under the heading of neurology. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister what can be done in the training of neurologists in the particular conditions which fall within that heading.
I, too, want to talk briefly about the national service framework. It is not our job to second-guess the work of that reference group, but there are two questions I want to ask. First, as has been alluded to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, how will it be possible within the current set-up of the National Health Service to ensure that in a designated region—I ask what size the region should be—there is a system in which there is a consultant neurologist who is responsible within a unit for training and support to all the other staff—general staff, GPs, community nurses, CPNs and psychiatrists—for dissemination of training and experience in this subject? The same applies to some of the other long term conditions. I do not know whether it should be at the level of the strategic health authority. I believe it is the key question that could be answered in the national service framework.
Secondly, I am not a doctor and make no claims in that respect. However, given the nature of this disease in which some neuro-muscular functions fail but others such as bladder control do not, and given that there is no sensory impairment associated with MND, it seems to be a condition in which there should be a high probability of a breakthrough at some point for the discovery of a cause, whether chemical, genetic or physiological. Therefore, is there a case for the Government to invest in two or three centres of excellence pursuing slightly different approaches to the condition?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Culkein, have said, people diagnosed with MND face a devastating future. For some people, complementary therapies, such as specialist massage or acupuncture, may benefit by prolonging mobility or in pain management. I want to make clear that I make no claim whatever for complementary therapies as any form of cure, but I merely make a case for them as a means which may be effective for some people in prolonging quality of life and pain management. If that is so, above all else, these
932
people deserve rapid access to that treatment and they deserve it as part of the National Health Service. For some people it may be cost-effective by allowing them to continue to work for longer than they may have done. Therefore, it is an issue worth following up.
Finally, I, too, pay tribute to the work of the MND Association. It provides calm, balanced information and support of the highest quality and integrity to people who have the disease and to the people who love and care for them. The association has built a good foundation for the work of the specialist group working on the national service framework. I hope that the Government will continue to support its efforts directly. In that way, surely hope must lie and if we can achieve anything we can achieve hope.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for the opportunity to have such an important, eloquent and heartfelt debate on such an important topic. She introduced it in such a powerful and compassionate way with a splendid speech. Although I do not have the MNDA brief, it is a privilege to reply.
In all probability, I shall take a little longer than my allotted 15 minutes. I hope that I can assure noble Lords that we intend to bring both hope and, equally important, action on what—I agree with the noble Baroness—is not a satisfactory situation. There is much that needs improving. There is much that needs extra attention and clear thinking. I hope that I can indicate that we are very much aware of what needs to be done and are trying to do it.
It has been an expert and moving debate. There is nothing that I could say to improve on the experience that has been set out in terms of the effect that this horrible disease has on individuals. The terms describing the disease—cruel, relentless, violent—in themselves probably are not sufficient to indicate what the actual impact is, both on the individual and the carer.
The issue that we are struggling with, both in professional terms and in terms of providing care, is the problem of the difficulty of diagnosis, to which so many noble Lords have referred. Would that we could look forward to the type of scientific breakthroughs seen in some other fields. In time, I hope that they will come. But diagnosis is hugely complex. Probably, we must agree that neurology has not been a very fashionable or popular speciality over the years. That is something we want to change and address. One of the reasons that the NSF holds out some possibilities is to raise the profile and to make people understand how important a speciality this is. There has been incredibly rapid progress in recent years in brain surgery which makes it a more attractive proposition for young and intelligent researchers and surgeons.
Unfortunately, diagnosis is difficult and often slow. As the noble Baroness said, an ordinary GP may see very few cases during the course of his or her lifetime. Every speaker has referred to the difficulties caused by unacceptably long waits. I will not rehearse the things

933
that the Government are doing to try to reduce waiting times overall. I am sure that noble Lords are very familiar with what we are doing and the fact that we are on target for this year and, I hope, next year as well. Certainly we are aware of the pressures on neurological specialists in the work place and because of the difficulties resulting from there not being enough of them. We have increased the number in recent years, but it is from a low base.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, took the wind out of my sails somewhat by quoting all the figures that I was going to quote. In fact, our best projections are that by March 2004 an extra 80 neurologists will be in place as well as additional registrars. I will have to write to her about how we are approaching local funding and distribution because these are technical workforce planning issues. The long-term conditions workforce, which includes neurologists, is looking at neurology in the context of its general work. It will be looking not just at the clinicians and registrars but at all the tasks and roles that are performed. So work is being done in that respect.
I join noble Lords in paying tribute to the part played by the MND Association. I am delighted that representatives from the association are with us this evening. I know that they had a recent meeting with my honourable friend in another place, Jacqui Smith. I hope that they understand that we are deeply mindful of their continuing contribution and their invaluable support for people with MND. We have an open door and are anxious to listen closely to their expertise. It is irreplaceable and very valuable. The resource of £7 million that I understand has been made available is very significant. The NHS has a lot to learn from the way in which the association works and I hope that it will do so over the next three years. The recent paper No Time to Lose, which was submitted to the team preparing the NSF, outlined the case for improved access and better co-ordinated services.
I will speak briefly about the two clinical interventions to which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred. I shall not try to pronounce them—it is too risky. I shall simply refer to them as PEG and RIG. PEG is the feeding technology; I can reaffirm that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been asked to develop a clinical guideline which includes the use of nutritional supplements. The MNDA is registered as the stakeholder; we are hopeful that that will make a significant difference to access and quality of treatment. We are expecting that around October 2004.
With regard to non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also referred, we have made progress to improve care for people who are seriously ill and have breathing problems. The NHS Modernisation Agency is kicking in at different stages of the situation that we face with MND, and I will refer to it several times. It has identified improvements in its critical care programme.
Last July, the report Weaning and Long Term Ventilation on how the new technology could help, was produced by a critical care working group, part of the agency's service improvement team. It looked at
934
patients with serious breathing problems and identified many ways in which patient care could be improved. It recommended that an NIPPV service be established in each acute trust for the management of patients with acute respiratory failure. That obviously includes people other than MND patients. It is a very significant contribution to the modernisation of the critical care service in this respect. We fully expect and want to see that that will bring about an improvement in both the distribution of the technology and the quality of life of patients with MND.
The noble Baroness also referred to riluzole. Following NICE guidance, the drug has been easier to obtain. The additional months of life that it can bring make it a very important and worthwhile development.
I want to spend some time on the issue of coordination, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was right to focus. It is too bland a term for what we want it to mean, which is the proper delivery of all the services, whether speech and language therapy, nutritional advice and diet, or supervision of the wheelchair, which should not happen nine months too late but on time. The challenge is to remove the obstacles.
If one was to ask an MND patient or nurse what they thought were the key elements of a good patient pathway, they would give the following list: informed GPs, who can speed up the referral process; a full assessment of needs, so that patients are not constantly having to return to say that something else has happened; the fullest possible information for patient and family at different stages; the link with a multidisciplinary team—a robust and single link; a single point of contact for navigation; regular reviews as the disease progresses so that patients or nurses can plan ahead for unpredictability; proper palliative care, hopefully in the home when it is needed; and respite care breaks in hospitals.
I want to be able to show that some of those elements are in place, because we are not waiting for the NSF. I take the point that it has taken time to set it up; it is complicated because it deals with so many different elements of different conditions. However, we have to tackle the issue of co-ordination, which is so essential with a disease of this nature, which progresses so fast and has such terrible implications for carers and the whole family. We are working hard to do what we can.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will know that we have freed up the systems for the health service partnership arrangements. They have been available since April 2000. I was delighted to hear about the case study in Merton and Sutton mentioned by my noble friend Lord MacKenzie of Culkein. Clearly, some excellent work is taking place in parts of the country. It would be nice to be able to bring it all together so that we can generalise that good practice. However, we have some new powers and opportunities pooled by joint strategies for joint teams, and a new and more intelligent way of making things happen on the ground. The new PCTs, with intelligent and broad conditioning, can make a difference.

935
Some 190 joint working partnerships have been set up. They are different models—as MND is a different model. We want to maximise those models, so that they help people who present specific and different sorts of challenges to the health service because of the rapid response needed. We have not seen M N Ds in the new 190 working partnerships, but I hope that MNDA will be able to show us how they might become more effective.
Joint working is essential if we are to ensure independence at home in comfort as long as possible. There are many good examples. Sutton and Merton has been referred to; King's College Hospital is another example, as is the Hope Hospital in Manchester, where excellent work is happening inside and outside the hospital. We would obviously like that sort of practice to be introduced elsewhere. MNDA also has a number of regional care advisers working with local services, who train, manage and support association visitors. That shows the difference that a single person could make. It is a model that we would like local health care providers to consider when they develop such services.
I shall refer to two services that are in urgent need of modernisation and which we have done something about. One is the wheelchair service and the other is community equipment, to which several noble Lords referred. We must admit that the supply of wheelchairs has been a source of genuine grievance and a genuine Cinderella service. We are pleased that, driven by the modernisation agency, the 45 wheelchair services have come together to form a collaborative. That is specifically there to redesign the services, to identify when people will need help, how they are going to get it and to close the gap between supply and demand. The programme of work of the collaborative will be made available from this autumn. That will mean a better service.
In relation to the provision of community equipment, I remind noble Lords that we have invested an extra £105 million into the NHS for the three years from 2001–2. A national integration of community equipment services support teams was launched in November 2001 with the aim of helping councils and organisations to meet the relevant targets, which are important. All community equipment services will be integrated across health and social services by 2004. Meeting that target means that 50 per cent more people will benefit from community equipment services by 2004. However, in relation to MND patients, we expect all equipment to be delivered within seven working days. We must speed things up, and integration and new resources must do that.
We are also considering better strategies. From later this year, the modernisation agency team will be developing a programme to improve access to neurology services as a whole. It will do that by examining referrals, waiting times, capacity and demand, choice and treatment and how to redesign services and develop clinical networks. We must see and treat more quickly and coherently.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised interesting questions about the distribution of neurologists. I expect that that agency team will examine, for
936
example, the proper use of neurologists and how they employ their time. We also have the new booking system, which means that patients now say when they can turn up for an appointment at their convenience, not that of the institution. We are already seeing that that means that there are fewer cancellations. Contextual strategies are helping in that regard. Specialist GPs are also being developed. Some of those GPs in certain areas may choose a neurological specialty, not least, as I said, because such interesting work is going on.
Many noble Lords rightly discussed carers. This must involve the most intense, exhausting and emotionally draining form of care that one could imagine. We have expanded investment in respite care, which will make a difference. We are expecting 130,000 new opportunities for respite care. It is important that that is properly delivered on the ground, and funding is going into that.
I turn to direct payments. We need to build in flexibility and choice for the carer. Direct payment means, for example, that a mobile phone will allow for peace of mind if one must, for example, leave the home to go shopping. One can essentially buy in the right sort of care—a personal sort of care. That also helps one to bring in more district nurses to supply the sort of advice and support that teaches one how to use feeding and ventilation systems. That is crucial and we hope that it will be developed.
We have put an additional £50 million into palliative care. One way to ensure that that aid is properly driven is by setting up the palliative care partnership. Clearly, part of the challenge is to ensure that that palliative care is available on the basis of choice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about aromatherapy. We have just announced a research programme into aromatherapy to the value of £1.3 million. I am fully aware that some aromatherapy services are so therapeutic that they can be more effective in some ways than conventional medicine—I refer, for example, to massage for aching limbs. However, that must be the judgment of the clinical team on the ground. I feel positive about that.
I turn to the NSF and return to the patient pathway and what else can be done. We must recognise that the NSF represents a very important opportunity. It is driven by expertise and based on evidence. It must be real and practical as well as visionary. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, one of its most important tasks is to raise our knowledge of and understanding about the disease and the importance that we attach to dealing with it. The NSF is the right location for our future planning for MND. To respond to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it will deal with all patients of all ages in relation to MND. It aims to set general standards that will improve the quality and treatment for all.
I am delighted that the MNDA is involved in the external reference groups in different ways. I understand that it is actively involved in providing advice and contributions. In considering the pathway, working groups are now looking at the health and

937
social care needs of users, transitional issues between services, information to support the needs of users, and, how we can learn from the lessons. In fact, the pathway that I set out as the preferred patient pathway is precisely the kind of thing that the NSF must look at, apply and develop.
The common themes must be rapid referral, information, holistic care, flexible/seamless provision, easy access, co-ordination between the different roles, providing the support that the family wants, recognising complexity and multiple conditions and preparing for them.
So we are very keen that the NSF should bring improved and better services for patients. Its publication is planned for 2004. It is a 10-year programme. I know it feels a long time to wait. We have to be as intelligent and as far-sighted as we can. Sometimes these matters just take time. At the moment the NSF will be supported with a delivery strategy that will look at workforce aspects. So these changes are about practical delivery on the ground.
938
In conclusion, I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on her question regarding the syndrome in relation to disorders in different situations. I hope that noble Lords will agree that we take this condition very seriously and are anxious to make improvements and changes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that MND patients had much living to do. That is an extremely powerful statement. If that were taken as the slogan for the NSF in this respect we could certainly guarantee that there would be better outcomes. Certainly, I am confident that the initiatives that I have outlined for the interim, as well as for the long-term, will make a very important and necessary difference.

Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before nine o'clock.

  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  Northern Ireland Departments: Spending
  Northern Ireland Departments: Spending
  Self-Contained Air Cartridge System Air Guns
  Self-Contained Air Cartridge System Air Guns
  Immigration Control: Algerian Nationals
  Immigration Control: Algerian Nationals
  Passports
  Passports
  Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Her Majesty's Forces) (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Her Majesty's Forces) (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  European Convention on Human Rights: Breaches
  European Convention on Human Rights: Breaches
  e-government
  e-government
  Board of Transport Accident Investigators
  Board of Transport Accident Investigators
  Nuclear Decommissioning Agency and Nuclear Liabilities Fund
  Nuclear Decommissioning Agency and Nuclear Liabilities Fund
  Transfusion-related Acute Lung Injury
  Transfusion-related Acute Lung Injury
  Plasma Transfusions
  Plasma Transfusions
  Pharmacies
  Pharmacies
  Animal By-Products Regulation
  Animal By-Products Regulation
  Endangered Species
  Endangered Species
  Regional Assemblies: Functions
  Regional Assemblies: Functions